Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 27 11:51:30 2005
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:51:30 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Draft For Comment: "Was The Pope A Neocon?"
Message-ID: <20050327165130.GA1479@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050327155858.99563.qmail@web51502.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050327155858.99563.qmail@web51502.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1487 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 866
Lines: 24
The pope's such an odd man. I have a short piece at FrontPage
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4985
that discusses a statement he put out on immigration that presents the
usual total inclusiveness rap everybody lays on us these days and then
goes on to say
"The path to true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity
is actually a difficult one, in some cases a real Way of the Cross."
Which is quite true. True acceptance of immigrants in their cultural
diversity means, for a modern Western society that emphasizes public
life and equality, its own self-annihilation. It's incomprehensible to
me that he should think self-annihilation good public policy but there
you are.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 07:58:58AM -0800, i wrote:
> Draft for comment: "Was the Pope A Neocon?"
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 27 17:05:01 2005
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:05:01 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Draft For Comment: "Was The Pope A Neocon?"
Message-ID: <20050327220501.GB2391@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <02da01c53314$67194900$008dfea9@h6l3p> <20050327214958.96448.qmail@web51503.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050327214958.96448.qmail@web51503.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1489 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 5701
Lines: 88
Same thing's true of other people involved in intellectual work that in
some way requires a comprehensive view of things. I think it's ok for
hierarchs, novelists, philosophers, sociologists etc. to say what their
views are. It's nice if they show a little humility but it's not likely
and when they fall short on that the burden's on us mentally to stick
"here's how it looks to me" into their pronouncements here and there.
I think it would be less of a problem if the Chairman of Ways and Means
actually did have some thoughts on topics a serious man can't avoid like
the care of the soul. If the people who should be in a position to speak
authoritatively about politics don't seem up to the task of speaking
seriously about basic issues then other authorities will try to fill the
void.
jk
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:49:57PM -0800, i wrote:
> Church hierarchs, both Catholic and Protestant, suffer from a peculiar intellectual disease in which they think their theological knowledge gives them special insight into earthly politics. Then they reliably parrot whatever hackneyed conventional wisdom is in circulation, or was 20 years ago. This tendency is worst in those hierarchs who have lost interest in actual religion. I consider it like hearing the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee lecture me on the care of my soul.
>
> i
>
> la wrote:
> Well, the Pope appears to be a spectacularly befuddled, naive liberal as well as a neocon. He is large, he contains multitudes.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: i
> To: la ; Ken
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 3:41.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Draft For Comment: "Was The Pope A Neocon?"
>
>
> His expectation that the EU constitution would reference Europe's Christian heritage also shows a painfully naive lack of understanding of the essence of this neo-Jacobin project to complete Napoleon's dream of a united Europe.
>
> i
>
> la wrote:
> Another point recently made by someone (sorry I forget who) was that Islam, being a people defined by religion rather than by nationhood, can only be stopped by discrete nations acting in their own interests. Since Europe has ceased being nations, there are no longer any entities in Europe that can stand against Islam. If the Pope doesn't want the West to be islamized, he should want to strengthen the traditional Western nations which are real power sources that can defend themselves, whereas the EU, lacking any identity other than unification, cannot defend itself.
>
> Of course the Pope is a typical confused liberal on these issues. On one hand, he urges ecumemism and open borders, on the other hand, he whines that the EU Constitution didn't make a bow to Europe's Christian identity.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: i
> To: Ken
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:19.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Draft For Comment: "Was The Pope A Neocon?"
>
>
> 1. Have a care where you're going with this. It leads straight to another article entitled "The Know-Nothings Were Right About Catholics."
>
> 2. The article never said the pope is responsible for defending America's traditional national identity as such. It said he has unwisely bought into a philosophy that attacks ALL traditional national identities, and thus ends up sawing off the branch he, as the head of a traditional religion that is part of many nation's cultural identities, is sitting on. He seems to think that if you liquidate national identity, there'll be nothing left but individuals and the Catholic Church; it won't work that way.
>
> 3. If I personally had to tell the pope why destroying America's traditional national identity is bad for him, I'd tell him, "Look, letting Mexicans into America isn't going to make America Catholic. It's going to make it a multiculti chaos under a secularist government whose fundamental principles are 100 times more hostile to what you stand for than cracker Protestantism." As for his defending an amnesty for Moslems in Europe, that's a no-brainer.
>
> i
>
> Ken wrote:
>
> In fact, the only context in which the Pope did seem to value a
> culture in itself is when it is threatened by Communist or
> colonialist domination. This explains why he passionately
> defended the Polish national culture in its resistance to
> Communist tyranny, but has shown no concern about the
> self-undoing of America's national culture through its attack on
> its own particularity.
>
> I think you need to make an explicit case that defending America's
> national culture does in fact fall under the Pope's job description. I
> understand why it's important to Robert Locke. It's not obvious why it
> should be equally important to someone who's not American, not
> Anglo-Saxon, and not Protestant. Can you think of *any* pope who
> defended a non-Catholic national culture specifically against an
> encroaching Catholic population.
>
>
> On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 10:58, i wrote:
> > Draft for comment: "Was the Pope A Neocon?"
> >
> > i
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 2 20:36:18 2005
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:36:18 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: George demetrion
Subject: Re: quick question
Message-ID: <20050403013618.GA12489@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1500 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4873
Lines: 94
Hello!
1. The "spirit" of capitalism requires well-defined property rights so
that people can establish what happens by contract. To the extent the
claims that can be made and the amount of damages in law suits become
unpredictable then property rights aren't well-defined and it's not
capitalism or at least can't function well as such.
2. I think it's true that the spirit of a free market economy is related
to the spirit of the common law, that the law isn't planned out by some
central authority but by cases coming up here and there decided by
judges looking at what other judges have done and the attitudes and
presumptions that order social life generally. I think though that the
common law in that sense can't work in isolation from the general social
environment. If what you have in general is a welfare state, with
extensive government social intervention to solve individual problems,
then the attitudes and presumptions that order social life will assume
that if somebody has a serious problem then big institutions should step
up and cover it in some orderly way. In that case the common law
approach won't work, because the assumptions it's applying will assume
overall planning and administration.
3. As to the Constitution, I think it's basically a regulation of
interstate commerce thing. If it was (e.g.) Georgians suing Georgian
companies in Georgia courts then the feds wouldn't have to get involved
since people down there could solve their own problems. The problem
arises as a federal matter mostly because it's Georgians suing
out-of-state financial interests in Georgian courts, and everybody in
the US has to give full faith and credit to whatever the outcome turns
out to be. So the existence of the federal structure creates the
possibility for Georgians and their courts to abuse the structure to
extract lots of money from people elsewhere. It makes sense in terms of
that structure for there to be a federal response.
4. I don't consider GWB conservative.
jk
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:01:27PM -0500, George demetrion wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> We've discussed this before and have had some interesting back and forth. Technically speaking, you may be correct. However, without even getting into the rhetorical ploys the right has used in phrasing the very notion of "frivolous" law suits, I think it can be argued that a law limiting damages, at the least, is a contradiction of the spirit of capitalism--that is, of letting the market, to be sure, broadly defined here, decide. Moreover, from a conservative perspective there is something incongruous in taking class action suits outside of state courts and mandating that only federal courts can adjudicate them. At the very least, this seems to be a violation of the spirit of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>
> The broader issue of whether the Bush administration and its various minions can be considered conservative at least in the Burkean and Kirkean sense is also a topic worthy of much consideration.
>
> Best,
>
> George Demetrion
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Kalb
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 7:55 PM
> To: George Demetrion
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005
> 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
>
> > This strikes me as part of the intellectual and moral collapse of the
> > Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked about.
> >
> > On the other hand it's worth saying that although JP II and Benedict
> > XvI
> > are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP II) extreme liberal
> > Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the end their liberalism
> > is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines what slant they'll
> > take on their ultimate concern but not their ultimate concern itself.
> > So
> > for them it's not true that freedom and equality trump absolutely
> > everything. And that's what liberalism now demands.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > > After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I drafted this for
> > > VFR, not posted yet.
> > >
> > > Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > >
> > > As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted coverage, the left
> > > is seriously unhappy with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as
> > > Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the Reuter's story gives
> > > the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was
> > > elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice that delighted
> > > traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned moderates hoping for a
> > > more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea are repeated numerous
> > > times in the course of the article. The irony, of course, is that
> > > Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in reality a liberal,
> > > namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved further to the left
> > > since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of an early '60s
> > > liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism of the late '60s.
> > > This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an "arch-conservative," a
> > > defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox legacy," "John
> > > Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years," "too divisive and
> > > too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe," "expected to take a tough
> > > line against reformist trends," a man whose "stern leadership ...
> > > delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates ... " It
> > > really all comes down to God and sex. A man can be a liberal on a
> > > whole range of issues, but if he believes in God and takes
> > > religious morality seriously, then he's a right-winger. Thus
> > > William Jennings Bryan, the father of the modern, progressive
> > > Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in liberal circles
> > > because he believed in God and religious morality. Similarly,
> > > President Bush, a radical liberal on everything from open borders
> > > to universal democratism, believes in God and religious morality,
> > > and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 19 20:33:05 2005
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:33:05 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420003305.GB8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <027b01c54532$0d36be60$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419230249.GA8353@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02c601c54535$6ae1e6e0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419232834.GA8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1520 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 7636
Lines: 181
Sounds like a similar situation.
With the two popes you have men who are post WW II European
intellectuals, and in the case of JP II an actor and dramatist who
wanted to reach audiences. So they chose whenever they could to present
what they had to say by reference to the categories now accepted and
taken for granted. That was a lot of the Vatican II idea by the way. The
problem with that idea in general is that unless you have a very strong
grip on what it is you're trying to present the presentation will
corrupt the substance. It won't always corrupt the substance though and
there will be a lot of ambiguous cases where it really isn't clear just
what's being presented.
I think Benedict has pulled back much more from the Vat II idea than JP
II had. He's very favorable to the Tridentine mass for example and says
it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the priest to
turn around and face the congregation.
jk
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:44:36PM -0400, la wrote:
>
> Ok, we're articulating a new phenom here. Actually it's quite common.
> It comes down to putting a liberal front and message on something that
> is essentially conservative.
>
> For example, a few years ago I went to an art exhibit at the Brooklyn
> Museum, it's title was something like "The Multicultural New World Art,"
> or "Multicultural Spanish American Art."
>
> But in fact, the entire exhibit consisted of conventional
> Christian-themed paintings and statues, from Peru, Mexico and so on.
> Many of them quite wonderful and unlike Christian European art, but not
> different from them either in any essential sense. There was NOTHING
> multicutlural here. Most of the artists, in fact, were not Indian
> converts to Christianity, but European colonists and transplants in the
> New World.
>
> So it was a traditional exhibit of Christian art, but it presented
> itself as a multicultural exhibit. Procedurally it was liberal,
> substantively it was conservative.
>
> This is a general motif one finds a lot. It would be interesting to
> write an article about it.
>
> Does this fit with what you're describing vis a vis the two popes?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
>
>
> > An example would be JP II's kissing the Koran and while also backing
> > Ratzinger's Dominus Iesu. He expresses his respect and reverence for
> > what truth there is in another religion in the most extreme way
> > imaginable while also insisting that the full and necessary truth
> > regarding what is needed for salvation is in Jesus Christ and
> > Catholicism. Another would be JP II's pronouncement, which Ratzinger
> > pronounced (evidently correctly) ex cathedra and infallible, that
> women
> > can't be priests even though he put a feminist or at least pro-female
> > spin on things to the extent he could.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:13:35PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is provocative. If, as you say, they take a liberal, or even
> > > extreme liberal slant on a substantive ultimate concern that is not
> > > liberal, how is that to be understood? Is it still, as I have
> argued,
> > > analogous to neoconservatism? Or is it something else? I argue
> that
> > > neoconservatism means havng a conservative-seeming loyalty to a
> > > substantial thing, like America, but redefining America in liberal
> > > terms, so it's really a form of liberalism presenting itself as
> > > conservatism. The ultimate concern is a liberal process such as
> > > democracy, elections, equality. But these two popes' ultimate
> concern,
> > > you are suggesting, is substantive: God, salvation, the kingdom of
> > > heaven. So it appears that my analogy to neoconservatism breaks
> down.
> > >
> > > But, in order to understand this better, could you give an example
> of
> > > how they take a liberal slant on a non-liberal ultimate concern?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005
> > > 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict
> XVI
> > >
> > > > This strikes me as part of the intellectual and moral collapse of
> the
> > > > Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked about.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand it's worth saying that although JP II and
> Benedict
> > > > XvI
> > > > are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP II) extreme
> liberal
> > > > Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the end their
> liberalism
> > > > is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines what slant
> they'll
> > > > take on their ultimate concern but not their ultimate concern
> itself.
> > > > So
> > > > for them it's not true that freedom and equality trump absolutely
> > > > everything. And that's what liberalism now demands.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I drafted this
> for
> > > > > VFR, not posted yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > >
> > > > > As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted coverage, the
> left
> > > > > is seriously unhappy with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as
> > > > > Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the Reuter's story
> gives
> > > > > the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
> was
> > > > > elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice that delighted
> > > > > traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned moderates hoping for
> a
> > > > > more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea are repeated
> numerous
> > > > > times in the course of the article. The irony, of course, is
> that
> > > > > Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in reality a
> liberal,
> > > > > namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved further to the left
> > > > > since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of an early '60s
> > > > > liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism of the late
> '60s.
> > > > > This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an "arch-conservative," a
> > > > > defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox legacy," "John
> > > > > Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years," "too divisive and
> > > > > too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe," "expected to take a
> tough
> > > > > line against reformist trends," a man whose "stern leadership
> ...
> > > > > delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates ... " It
> > > > > really all comes down to God and sex. A man can be a liberal on
> a
> > > > > whole range of issues, but if he believes in God and takes
> > > > > religious morality seriously, then he's a right-winger. Thus
> > > > > William Jennings Bryan, the father of the modern, progressive
> > > > > Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in liberal circles
> > > > > because he believed in God and religious morality. Similarly,
> > > > > President Bush, a radical liberal on everything from open
> borders
> > > > > to universal democratism, believes in God and religious
> morality,
> > > > > and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 19 21:20:35 2005
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:20:35 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420012035.GA8956@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <027b01c54532$0d36be60$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419230249.GA8353@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02c601c54535$6ae1e6e0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419232834.GA8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420003305.GB8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <031801c54543$a23784c0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <031801c54543$a23784c0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1521 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 10985
Lines: 290
I really can't discuss the thought of JP II because I don't know or
understand much of it. It seems to me that Veritatis Splendor is a
useful piece. The speech on immigration on the other hand that I wrote
about is a bizarre piece. Other things it seems to me sort of bobble
around. Don't ask me what they mean.
I think he wanted very much to connect to everybody and every possible
tendency of thought. Quite likely you could extract a philosophy of
neoconservatism out of his writings but you could no doubt extract some
other philosophy from them too. It seems to me that the man himself in
his ultimate loyalty was a Catholic rather than a neocon. There's no
such thing as a heroic or saintly neocon.
jk
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:55:16PM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> and says
> > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the priest
> to
> > turn around and face the congregation.
> >
>
> He's said that? That's great! That's the single most important thing
> IMO. By which I mean, the turning around to face the congregation is
> the single greatest act of harm that has been done to the Christian
> liturgy, emanating out, not just through Christianity but our entire
> culture, destroying the sense of the sacred in every dimension of life
> and society.
>
> But getting back to our topic, it seems to me that what you are
> articulating is the converse of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism means
> conservative form with liberal substance. But what you're describing is
> liberal form with conservative substance.
>
> Where does this leave my view of JPII as the philosopher of
> neoconservatism? Do you agree with my 2002 article of that name?
>
> Further, is what you're saying true? My thesis on JP is that he sounds
> conservative on culture, because he speaks of the importance of culture.
> But he defines culture solely in terms of the individual person. This
> is conservative form with liberal substance, i.e., neoconservatism.
>
> What is your reply to this? Perhaps the answer is that JPII was neocon
> on some issues, like culture, but the converse of neocon (a condition
> for which we don't yet have a name) on other issues, like Church
> doctrine.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:33.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> conservative?
>
>
> > Sounds like a similar situation.
> >
> > With the two popes you have men who are post WW II European
> > intellectuals, and in the case of JP II an actor and dramatist who
> > wanted to reach audiences. So they chose whenever they could to
> present
> > what they had to say by reference to the categories now accepted and
> > taken for granted. That was a lot of the Vatican II idea by the way.
> The
> > problem with that idea in general is that unless you have a very
> strong
> > grip on what it is you're trying to present the presentation will
> > corrupt the substance. It won't always corrupt the substance though
> and
> > there will be a lot of ambiguous cases where it really isn't clear
> just
> > what's being presented.
> >
> > I think Benedict has pulled back much more from the Vat II idea than
> JP
> > II had. He's very favorable to the Tridentine mass for example and
> says
> > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the priest
> to
> > turn around and face the congregation.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:44:36PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, we're articulating a new phenom here. Actually it's quite
> common.
> > > It comes down to putting a liberal front and message on something
> that
> > > is essentially conservative.
> > >
> > > For example, a few years ago I went to an art exhibit at the
> Brooklyn
> > > Museum, it's title was something like "The Multicultural New World
> Art,"
> > > or "Multicultural Spanish American Art."
> > >
> > > But in fact, the entire exhibit consisted of conventional
> > > Christian-themed paintings and statues, from Peru, Mexico and so on.
> > > Many of them quite wonderful and unlike Christian European art, but
> not
> > > different from them either in any essential sense. There was
> NOTHING
> > > multicutlural here. Most of the artists, in fact, were not Indian
> > > converts to Christianity, but European colonists and transplants in
> the
> > > New World.
> > >
> > > So it was a traditional exhibit of Christian art, but it presented
> > > itself as a multicultural exhibit. Procedurally it was liberal,
> > > substantively it was conservative.
> > >
> > > This is a general motif one finds a lot. It would be interesting to
> > > write an article about it.
> > >
> > > Does this fit with what you're describing vis a vis the two popes?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > >
> > >
> > > > An example would be JP II's kissing the Koran and while also
> backing
> > > > Ratzinger's Dominus Iesu. He expresses his respect and reverence
> for
> > > > what truth there is in another religion in the most extreme way
> > > > imaginable while also insisting that the full and necessary truth
> > > > regarding what is needed for salvation is in Jesus Christ and
> > > > Catholicism. Another would be JP II's pronouncement, which
> Ratzinger
> > > > pronounced (evidently correctly) ex cathedra and infallible, that
> > > women
> > > > can't be priests even though he put a feminist or at least
> pro-female
> > > > spin on things to the extent he could.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:13:35PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is provocative. If, as you say, they take a liberal, or
> even
> > > > > extreme liberal slant on a substantive ultimate concern that is
> not
> > > > > liberal, how is that to be understood? Is it still, as I have
> > > argued,
> > > > > analogous to neoconservatism? Or is it something else? I argue
> > > that
> > > > > neoconservatism means havng a conservative-seeming loyalty to a
> > > > > substantial thing, like America, but redefining America in
> liberal
> > > > > terms, so it's really a form of liberalism presenting itself as
> > > > > conservatism. The ultimate concern is a liberal process such as
> > > > > democracy, elections, equality. But these two popes' ultimate
> > > concern,
> > > > > you are suggesting, is substantive: God, salvation, the kingdom
> of
> > > > > heaven. So it appears that my analogy to neoconservatism breaks
> > > down.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, in order to understand this better, could you give an
> example
> > > of
> > > > > how they take a liberal slant on a non-liberal ultimate concern?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19,
> 2005
> > > > > 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over
> Benedict
> > > XVI
> > > > >
> > > > > > This strikes me as part of the intellectual and moral collapse
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the other hand it's worth saying that although JP II and
> > > Benedict
> > > > > > XvI
> > > > > > are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP II) extreme
> > > liberal
> > > > > > Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the end their
> > > liberalism
> > > > > > is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines what slant
> > > they'll
> > > > > > take on their ultimate concern but not their ultimate concern
> > > itself.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > for them it's not true that freedom and equality trump
> absolutely
> > > > > > everything. And that's what liberalism now demands.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, la
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I drafted
> this
> > > for
> > > > > > > VFR, not posted yet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted coverage,
> the
> > > left
> > > > > > > is seriously unhappy with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger
> as
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the Reuter's
> story
> > > gives
> > > > > > > the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal Joseph
> Ratzinger
> > > was
> > > > > > > elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice that delighted
> > > > > > > traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned moderates hoping
> for
> > > a
> > > > > > > more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea are repeated
> > > numerous
> > > > > > > times in the course of the article. The irony, of course, is
> > > that
> > > > > > > Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in reality a
> > > liberal,
> > > > > > > namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved further to the
> left
> > > > > > > since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of an early
> '60s
> > > > > > > liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism of the late
> > > '60s.
> > > > > > > This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an "arch-conservative," a
> > > > > > > defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox legacy,"
> "John
> > > > > > > Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years," "too divisive
> and
> > > > > > > too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe," "expected to take
> a
> > > tough
> > > > > > > line against reformist trends," a man whose "stern
> leadership
> > > ...
> > > > > > > delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates ... "
> It
> > > > > > > really all comes down to God and sex. A man can be a liberal
> on
> > > a
> > > > > > > whole range of issues, but if he believes in God and takes
> > > > > > > religious morality seriously, then he's a right-winger. Thus
> > > > > > > William Jennings Bryan, the father of the modern,
> progressive
> > > > > > > Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in liberal circles
> > > > > > > because he believed in God and religious morality.
> Similarly,
> > > > > > > President Bush, a radical liberal on everything from open
> > > borders
> > > > > > > to universal democratism, believes in God and religious
> > > morality,
> > > > > > > and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 20 07:19:24 2005
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:19:24 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420111924.GA9231@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <027b01c54532$0d36be60$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419230249.GA8353@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02c601c54535$6ae1e6e0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419232834.GA8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420003305.GB8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <031801c54543$a23784c0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420012035.GA8956@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <038401c5455d$42e053c0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <038401c5455d$42e053c0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1522 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 17357
Lines: 377
I can't make detailed sense of his writings. I can say what I think his
general way of operating and overall loyalties are.
As to the Gospel of Life, I think it's quite true that each individual
physical life has an incomparable value. Otherwise it would be legit to
kill people simply as a matter of policy, to get some overall benefit or
other.
That isn't universal welfare statism because it says nothing about what
social organization is appropriate in light of the incomparable value of
human life. It would be universal welfare statism if he were a
technological rationalist, if he believed that once you define the goal
then the point is to organize things to guarantee achievement of that
goal.
Suppose Benedict promulgates an encyclical the Gospel of the Afterlife
and says that the eternal well-being of every soul is an incomparable
value. Would that make him a universal theocrat who wants to burn
heretics?
My answer is that there are lots of things that are goods and even
incomparable goods that ought to be taken into account, by government as
by everyone else, but the achievement of which can't be guaranteed by
social organization. If things were otherwise then the incomparable
importance of what each of us chooses morally and therefore the
incomparable value of human dignity would be lost.
Here's JP II on the welfare state in Centesimus Annus:
"In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in
exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute
function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are
just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such
supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons
touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid
removing permanently from society and business systems the functions
which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the
sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil
freedom.
"In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to
the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare
State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better
to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation
unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially
in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare
State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in
the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate
understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle
of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should
not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order,
depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in
case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of
the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
"By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility,
the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an
inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by
bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients,
and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."
jk
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:58:47PM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> Well, ok, you can't make much sense of JPII. But earlier you did seem to make at least some sense of him, when you said that his liberalism is adjectival, that he is a liberal Catholic, having a liberal slant directed toward genuine Christian concerns.
>
> >From various angles, I disagree. Take The Gospel of Life. In that encyclical, he starts out with God's creation of man and salvific purpose for man, but that is only prelude and passageway to his real purpose, which is to posit the "incomparable value" of every physical human life and make the protection of every individual life a NEW GOSPEL. As I see it, this is universal welfare statism, this is an EGALITARIAN ASSERTION OF THE EQUAL VALUE OF EVERY LIFE REGARDLESS OF ITS CONTENT, replacing the Christian way, which is not egalitarian.
>
> Yes, in other angles, in the amazingly contradictory soul of JPII, he had genuine devotion to God, but it was all mixed up with this genuinely LIBERAL stuff. In some ways, as you say, he was a liberal Catholic (adjectivally liberal, substantively Catholic). But in other ways, and I would argue that he was a Catholic liberal (adjectivially Catholic, substantively liberal).
>
> Certainly I see The Gospel of Life as the Catholic version of liberalism, Catholic liberalism: an assertion of the total material equality of all human beings and the need for an increasingly global state to protect and defend all material human beings from oppression.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:20.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
>
>
> > I really can't discuss the thought of JP II because I don't know or
> > understand much of it. It seems to me that Veritatis Splendor is a
> > useful piece. The speech on immigration on the other hand that I wrote
> > about is a bizarre piece. Other things it seems to me sort of bobble
> > around. Don't ask me what they mean.
> >
> > I think he wanted very much to connect to everybody and every possible
> > tendency of thought. Quite likely you could extract a philosophy of
> > neoconservatism out of his writings but you could no doubt extract some
> > other philosophy from them too. It seems to me that the man himself in
> > his ultimate loyalty was a Catholic rather than a neocon. There's no
> > such thing as a heroic or saintly neocon.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:55:16PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > and says
> > > > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the priest
> > > to
> > > > turn around and face the congregation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He's said that? That's great! That's the single most important thing
> > > IMO. By which I mean, the turning around to face the congregation is
> > > the single greatest act of harm that has been done to the Christian
> > > liturgy, emanating out, not just through Christianity but our entire
> > > culture, destroying the sense of the sacred in every dimension of life
> > > and society.
> > >
> > > But getting back to our topic, it seems to me that what you are
> > > articulating is the converse of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism means
> > > conservative form with liberal substance. But what you're describing is
> > > liberal form with conservative substance.
> > >
> > > Where does this leave my view of JPII as the philosopher of
> > > neoconservatism? Do you agree with my 2002 article of that name?
> > >
> > > Further, is what you're saying true? My thesis on JP is that he sounds
> > > conservative on culture, because he speaks of the importance of culture.
> > > But he defines culture solely in terms of the individual person. This
> > > is conservative form with liberal substance, i.e., neoconservatism.
> > >
> > > What is your reply to this? Perhaps the answer is that JPII was neocon
> > > on some issues, like culture, but the converse of neocon (a condition
> > > for which we don't yet have a name) on other issues, like Church
> > > doctrine.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:33.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> > > conservative?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sounds like a similar situation.
> > > >
> > > > With the two popes you have men who are post WW II European
> > > > intellectuals, and in the case of JP II an actor and dramatist who
> > > > wanted to reach audiences. So they chose whenever they could to
> > > present
> > > > what they had to say by reference to the categories now accepted and
> > > > taken for granted. That was a lot of the Vatican II idea by the way.
> > > The
> > > > problem with that idea in general is that unless you have a very
> > > strong
> > > > grip on what it is you're trying to present the presentation will
> > > > corrupt the substance. It won't always corrupt the substance though
> > > and
> > > > there will be a lot of ambiguous cases where it really isn't clear
> > > just
> > > > what's being presented.
> > > >
> > > > I think Benedict has pulled back much more from the Vat II idea than
> > > JP
> > > > II had. He's very favorable to the Tridentine mass for example and
> > > says
> > > > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the priest
> > > to
> > > > turn around and face the congregation.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:44:36PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, we're articulating a new phenom here. Actually it's quite
> > > common.
> > > > > It comes down to putting a liberal front and message on something
> > > that
> > > > > is essentially conservative.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, a few years ago I went to an art exhibit at the
> > > Brooklyn
> > > > > Museum, it's title was something like "The Multicultural New World
> > > Art,"
> > > > > or "Multicultural Spanish American Art."
> > > > >
> > > > > But in fact, the entire exhibit consisted of conventional
> > > > > Christian-themed paintings and statues, from Peru, Mexico and so on.
> > > > > Many of them quite wonderful and unlike Christian European art, but
> > > not
> > > > > different from them either in any essential sense. There was
> > > NOTHING
> > > > > multicutlural here. Most of the artists, in fact, were not Indian
> > > > > converts to Christianity, but European colonists and transplants in
> > > the
> > > > > New World.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it was a traditional exhibit of Christian art, but it presented
> > > > > itself as a multicultural exhibit. Procedurally it was liberal,
> > > > > substantively it was conservative.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a general motif one finds a lot. It would be interesting to
> > > > > write an article about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this fit with what you're describing vis a vis the two popes?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > An example would be JP II's kissing the Koran and while also
> > > backing
> > > > > > Ratzinger's Dominus Iesu. He expresses his respect and reverence
> > > for
> > > > > > what truth there is in another religion in the most extreme way
> > > > > > imaginable while also insisting that the full and necessary truth
> > > > > > regarding what is needed for salvation is in Jesus Christ and
> > > > > > Catholicism. Another would be JP II's pronouncement, which
> > > Ratzinger
> > > > > > pronounced (evidently correctly) ex cathedra and infallible, that
> > > > > women
> > > > > > can't be priests even though he put a feminist or at least
> > > pro-female
> > > > > > spin on things to the extent he could.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:13:35PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is provocative. If, as you say, they take a liberal, or
> > > even
> > > > > > > extreme liberal slant on a substantive ultimate concern that is
> > > not
> > > > > > > liberal, how is that to be understood? Is it still, as I have
> > > > > argued,
> > > > > > > analogous to neoconservatism? Or is it something else? I argue
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > neoconservatism means havng a conservative-seeming loyalty to a
> > > > > > > substantial thing, like America, but redefining America in
> > > liberal
> > > > > > > terms, so it's really a form of liberalism presenting itself as
> > > > > > > conservatism. The ultimate concern is a liberal process such as
> > > > > > > democracy, elections, equality. But these two popes' ultimate
> > > > > concern,
> > > > > > > you are suggesting, is substantive: God, salvation, the kingdom
> > > of
> > > > > > > heaven. So it appears that my analogy to neoconservatism breaks
> > > > > down.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, in order to understand this better, could you give an
> > > example
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > how they take a liberal slant on a non-liberal ultimate concern?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19,
> > > 2005
> > > > > > > 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over
> > > Benedict
> > > > > XVI
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This strikes me as part of the intellectual and moral collapse
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked about.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On the other hand it's worth saying that although JP II and
> > > > > Benedict
> > > > > > > > XvI
> > > > > > > > are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP II) extreme
> > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the end their
> > > > > liberalism
> > > > > > > > is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines what slant
> > > > > they'll
> > > > > > > > take on their ultimate concern but not their ultimate concern
> > > > > itself.
> > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > for them it's not true that freedom and equality trump
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > everything. And that's what liberalism now demands.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, la
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I drafted
> > > this
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > VFR, not posted yet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted coverage,
> > > the
> > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > is seriously unhappy with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the Reuter's
> > > story
> > > > > gives
> > > > > > > > > the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal Joseph
> > > Ratzinger
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice that delighted
> > > > > > > > > traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned moderates hoping
> > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea are repeated
> > > > > numerous
> > > > > > > > > times in the course of the article. The irony, of course, is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in reality a
> > > > > liberal,
> > > > > > > > > namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved further to the
> > > left
> > > > > > > > > since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of an early
> > > '60s
> > > > > > > > > liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism of the late
> > > > > '60s.
> > > > > > > > > This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an "arch-conservative," a
> > > > > > > > > defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox legacy,"
> > > "John
> > > > > > > > > Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years," "too divisive
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe," "expected to take
> > > a
> > > > > tough
> > > > > > > > > line against reformist trends," a man whose "stern
> > > leadership
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates ... "
> > > It
> > > > > > > > > really all comes down to God and sex. A man can be a liberal
> > > on
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > whole range of issues, but if he believes in God and takes
> > > > > > > > > religious morality seriously, then he's a right-winger. Thus
> > > > > > > > > William Jennings Bryan, the father of the modern,
> > > progressive
> > > > > > > > > Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in liberal circles
> > > > > > > > > because he believed in God and religious morality.
> > > Similarly,
> > > > > > > > > President Bush, a radical liberal on everything from open
> > > > > borders
> > > > > > > > > to universal democratism, believes in God and religious
> > > > > morality,
> > > > > > > > > and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 20 07:30:44 2005
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:30:44 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: ron@ronlewenberg.com
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420113044.GB9231@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1523 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 20
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:54:24AM -0400, ron@ronlewenberg.com wrote:
> However, I am concerned that presentation defines the message.
I agree that aggiornamento, ecumenism etc. haven't worked, have gone too
far, have been applied imprudently, and so on. I think the way Vat II
was done created basic problems. You get 2500 bishops together and ask
them to write documents saying in general terms what the Church should
do in the future. They don't have any experience doing that sort of
thing and in fact have never worked together so they rely on advisers
who have a lot of interesting theories that the Council turn directly
into universal governing principles embodied in supremely authoritative
documents. Not a good idea, especially when the theories to the extent
legitimate have to do with secondary matters like presentation that
ought to be changed if at all cautiously, piecemeal and in light of
trial and error.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 20 08:02:04 2005
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:02:04 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420120204.GA10949@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050419230249.GA8353@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02c601c54535$6ae1e6e0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050419232834.GA8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420003305.GB8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <031801c54543$a23784c0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420012035.GA8956@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <038401c5455d$42e053c0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420111924.GA9231@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <007601c5459c$f80acfc0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <007601c5459c$f80acfc0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1524 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 21309
Lines: 564
I didn't say it was the only way to say murder is bad, just that it was
one way to say it. JP II liked dramatic gestures and statements. Also,
he was in fact confronted with a situation in which life and death are
increasingly treated as part of a rational industrial process (e.g.,
abortion, euthenasia, cloning) and he needed to say "no you can't do
that because there's something about a human life that's different from
a nose job."
Part of it I suppose is the meaning of "incomparable." Your "idolizing"
suggests you're taking it to mean "supreme." I think it's probably
better understood to mean "not exchangeable for something else." So to
say that some values like human life are incomparable would be to say
that technological and capitalist values have their limits. The tendency
of modernity is to flatten everything out and put all things on the same
level and the Pope was saying you can't do that. Not everybody is all
that special compared with other human beings but compared with a dog or
forward contract in soybeans a human being is special and you can't deal
with him the same way.
jk
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:34:47AM -0400, la wrote:
> Without responding yet to your whole e-mail, I disagree that the only
> way to prevent murder is to say that each life has an "incomparable"
> value. I just think that is overstated. Each person is a unique center
> of being and consciousness. People have a right to their own life, a
> right not to be killed. But to say that each life has an "incomparable"
> value verges on idolizing man and making a cult of man, in my opinion.
> In fact, the "incomparable" phrase is consistent with lots of other
> statements, which you have seen, explicitly celebrating the cult of man,
> e.g. (not an exact quote) "We stand in awe and amazement at the
> incomparable dignity of man."
>
> Let's be serious: Lots of people are not that special.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:19.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> conservative?
>
>
> > I can't make detailed sense of his writings. I can say what I think
> his
> > general way of operating and overall loyalties are.
> >
> > As to the Gospel of Life, I think it's quite true that each individual
> > physical life has an incomparable value. Otherwise it would be legit
> to
> > kill people simply as a matter of policy, to get some overall benefit
> or
> > other.
> >
> > That isn't universal welfare statism because it says nothing about
> what
> > social organization is appropriate in light of the incomparable value
> of
> > human life. It would be universal welfare statism if he were a
> > technological rationalist, if he believed that once you define the
> goal
> > then the point is to organize things to guarantee achievement of that
> > goal.
> >
> > Suppose Benedict promulgates an encyclical the Gospel of the Afterlife
> > and says that the eternal well-being of every soul is an incomparable
> > value. Would that make him a universal theocrat who wants to burn
> > heretics?
> >
> > My answer is that there are lots of things that are goods and even
> > incomparable goods that ought to be taken into account, by government
> as
> > by everyone else, but the achievement of which can't be guaranteed by
> > social organization. If things were otherwise then the incomparable
> > importance of what each of us chooses morally and therefore the
> > incomparable value of human dignity would be lost.
> >
> > Here's JP II on the welfare state in Centesimus Annus:
> >
> > "In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in
> > exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute
> > function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are
> > just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such
> > supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons
> > touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid
> > removing permanently from society and business systems the functions
> > which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively
> the
> > sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and
> civil
> > freedom.
> >
> > "In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded,
> to
> > the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare
> > State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better
> > to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and
> deprivation
> > unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially
> > in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare
> > State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects
> in
> > the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate
> > understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the
> principle
> > of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order
> should
> > not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order,
> > depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in
> > case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities
> of
> > the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
> >
> > "By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility,
> > the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an
> > inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by
> > bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their
> clients,
> > and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:58:47PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, ok, you can't make much sense of JPII. But earlier you did
> seem to make at least some sense of him, when you said that his
> liberalism is adjectival, that he is a liberal Catholic, having a
> liberal slant directed toward genuine Christian concerns.
> > >
> > > >From various angles, I disagree. Take The Gospel of Life. In that
> encyclical, he starts out with God's creation of man and salvific
> purpose for man, but that is only prelude and passageway to his real
> purpose, which is to posit the "incomparable value" of every physical
> human life and make the protection of every individual life a NEW
> GOSPEL. As I see it, this is universal welfare statism, this is an
> EGALITARIAN ASSERTION OF THE EQUAL VALUE OF EVERY LIFE REGARDLESS OF ITS
> CONTENT, replacing the Christian way, which is not egalitarian.
> > >
> > > Yes, in other angles, in the amazingly contradictory soul of JPII,
> he had genuine devotion to God, but it was all mixed up with this
> genuinely LIBERAL stuff. In some ways, as you say, he was a liberal
> Catholic (adjectivally liberal, substantively Catholic). But in other
> ways, and I would argue that he was a Catholic liberal (adjectivially
> Catholic, substantively liberal).
> > >
> > > Certainly I see The Gospel of Life as the Catholic version of
> liberalism, Catholic liberalism: an assertion of the total material
> equality of all human beings and the need for an increasingly global
> state to protect and defend all material human beings from oppression.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:20.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> conservative?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I really can't discuss the thought of JP II because I don't know
> or
> > > > understand much of it. It seems to me that Veritatis Splendor is a
> > > > useful piece. The speech on immigration on the other hand that I
> wrote
> > > > about is a bizarre piece. Other things it seems to me sort of
> bobble
> > > > around. Don't ask me what they mean.
> > > >
> > > > I think he wanted very much to connect to everybody and every
> possible
> > > > tendency of thought. Quite likely you could extract a philosophy
> of
> > > > neoconservatism out of his writings but you could no doubt extract
> some
> > > > other philosophy from them too. It seems to me that the man
> himself in
> > > > his ultimate loyalty was a Catholic rather than a neocon. There's
> no
> > > > such thing as a heroic or saintly neocon.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:55:16PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and says
> > > > > > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the
> priest
> > > > > to
> > > > > > turn around and face the congregation.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He's said that? That's great! That's the single most important
> thing
> > > > > IMO. By which I mean, the turning around to face the
> congregation is
> > > > > the single greatest act of harm that has been done to the
> Christian
> > > > > liturgy, emanating out, not just through Christianity but our
> entire
> > > > > culture, destroying the sense of the sacred in every dimension
> of life
> > > > > and society.
> > > > >
> > > > > But getting back to our topic, it seems to me that what you are
> > > > > articulating is the converse of neoconservatism.
> Neoconservatism means
> > > > > conservative form with liberal substance. But what you're
> describing is
> > > > > liberal form with conservative substance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where does this leave my view of JPII as the philosopher of
> > > > > neoconservatism? Do you agree with my 2002 article of that
> name?
> > > > >
> > > > > Further, is what you're saying true? My thesis on JP is that he
> sounds
> > > > > conservative on culture, because he speaks of the importance of
> culture.
> > > > > But he defines culture solely in terms of the individual person.
> This
> > > > > is conservative form with liberal substance, i.e.,
> neoconservatism.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your reply to this? Perhaps the answer is that JPII was
> neocon
> > > > > on some issues, like culture, but the converse of neocon (a
> condition
> > > > > for which we don't yet have a name) on other issues, like Church
> > > > > doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:33.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and
> substantively
> > > > > conservative?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds like a similar situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the two popes you have men who are post WW II European
> > > > > > intellectuals, and in the case of JP II an actor and dramatist
> who
> > > > > > wanted to reach audiences. So they chose whenever they could
> to
> > > > > present
> > > > > > what they had to say by reference to the categories now
> accepted and
> > > > > > taken for granted. That was a lot of the Vatican II idea by
> the way.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > problem with that idea in general is that unless you have a
> very
> > > > > strong
> > > > > > grip on what it is you're trying to present the presentation
> will
> > > > > > corrupt the substance. It won't always corrupt the substance
> though
> > > > > and
> > > > > > there will be a lot of ambiguous cases where it really isn't
> clear
> > > > > just
> > > > > > what's being presented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Benedict has pulled back much more from the Vat II
> idea than
> > > > > JP
> > > > > > II had. He's very favorable to the Tridentine mass for example
> and
> > > > > says
> > > > > > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for the
> priest
> > > > > to
> > > > > > turn around and face the congregation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:44:36PM -0400, la
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, we're articulating a new phenom here. Actually it's
> quite
> > > > > common.
> > > > > > > It comes down to putting a liberal front and message on
> something
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > is essentially conservative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, a few years ago I went to an art exhibit at the
> > > > > Brooklyn
> > > > > > > Museum, it's title was something like "The Multicultural New
> World
> > > > > Art,"
> > > > > > > or "Multicultural Spanish American Art."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in fact, the entire exhibit consisted of conventional
> > > > > > > Christian-themed paintings and statues, from Peru, Mexico
> and so on.
> > > > > > > Many of them quite wonderful and unlike Christian European
> art, but
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > different from them either in any essential sense. There
> was
> > > > > NOTHING
> > > > > > > multicutlural here. Most of the artists, in fact, were not
> Indian
> > > > > > > converts to Christianity, but European colonists and
> transplants in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > New World.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it was a traditional exhibit of Christian art, but it
> presented
> > > > > > > itself as a multicultural exhibit. Procedurally it was
> liberal,
> > > > > > > substantively it was conservative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a general motif one finds a lot. It would be
> interesting to
> > > > > > > write an article about it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does this fit with what you're describing vis a vis the two
> popes?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28.p.m.
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > An example would be JP II's kissing the Koran and while
> also
> > > > > backing
> > > > > > > > Ratzinger's Dominus Iesu. He expresses his respect and
> reverence
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > what truth there is in another religion in the most
> extreme way
> > > > > > > > imaginable while also insisting that the full and
> necessary truth
> > > > > > > > regarding what is needed for salvation is in Jesus Christ
> and
> > > > > > > > Catholicism. Another would be JP II's pronouncement, which
> > > > > Ratzinger
> > > > > > > > pronounced (evidently correctly) ex cathedra and
> infallible, that
> > > > > > > women
> > > > > > > > can't be priests even though he put a feminist or at least
> > > > > pro-female
> > > > > > > > spin on things to the extent he could.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:13:35PM -0400, la
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is provocative. If, as you say, they take a
> liberal, or
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > extreme liberal slant on a substantive ultimate concern
> that is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > liberal, how is that to be understood? Is it still, as
> I have
> > > > > > > argued,
> > > > > > > > > analogous to neoconservatism? Or is it something else?
> I argue
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > neoconservatism means havng a conservative-seeming
> loyalty to a
> > > > > > > > > substantial thing, like America, but redefining America
> in
> > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > > terms, so it's really a form of liberalism presenting it
> self as
> > > > > > > > > conservatism. The ultimate concern is a liberal process
> such as
> > > > > > > > > democracy, elections, equality. But these two popes'
> ultimate
> > > > > > > concern,
> > > > > > > > > you are suggesting, is substantive: God, salvation, the
> kingdom
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > heaven. So it appears that my analogy to
> neoconservatism breaks
> > > > > > > down.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But, in order to understand this better, could you give
> an
> > > > > example
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > how they take a liberal slant on a non-liberal ultimate
> concern?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday,
> April 19,
> > > > > 2005
> > > > > > > > > 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic"
> over
> > > > > Benedict
> > > > > > > XVI
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This strikes me as part of the intellectual and moral
> collapse
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked about.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand it's worth saying that although JP
> II and
> > > > > > > Benedict
> > > > > > > > > > XvI
> > > > > > > > > > are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP II)
> extreme
> > > > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > > > Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the end
> their
> > > > > > > liberalism
> > > > > > > > > > is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines what
> slant
> > > > > > > they'll
> > > > > > > > > > take on their ultimate concern but not their ultimate
> concern
> > > > > > > itself.
> > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > for them it's not true that freedom and equality trump
> > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > everything. And that's what liberalism now demands.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, Lawrence
> Auster
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I
> drafted
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > VFR, not posted yet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted
> coverage,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > is seriously unhappy with the election of Cardinal
> Ratzinger
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the
> Reuter's
> > > > > story
> > > > > > > gives
> > > > > > > > > > > the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal
> Joseph
> > > > > Ratzinger
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice that
> delighted
> > > > > > > > > > > traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned moderates
> hoping
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea are
> repeated
> > > > > > > numerous
> > > > > > > > > > > times in the course of the article. The irony, of
> course, is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in
> reality a
> > > > > > > liberal,
> > > > > > > > > > > namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved further
> to the
> > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of an
> early
> > > > > '60s
> > > > > > > > > > > liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism of
> the late
> > > > > > > '60s.
> > > > > > > > > > > This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an
> "arch-conservative," a
> > > > > > > > > > > defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox
> legacy,"
> > > > > "John
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years," "too
> divisive
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe," "expected
> to take
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > tough
> > > > > > > > > > > line against reformist trends," a man whose "stern
> > > > > leadership
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates
> ... "
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > really all comes down to God and sex. A man can be a
> liberal
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > whole range of issues, but if he believes in God and
> takes
> > > > > > > > > > > religious morality seriously, then he's a
> right-winger. Thus
> > > > > > > > > > > William Jennings Bryan, the father of the modern,
> > > > > progressive
> > > > > > > > > > > Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in liberal
> circles
> > > > > > > > > > > because he believed in God and religious morality.
> > > > > Similarly,
> > > > > > > > > > > President Bush, a radical liberal on everything from
> open
> > > > > > > borders
> > > > > > > > > > > to universal democratism, believes in God and
> religious
> > > > > > > morality,
> > > > > > > > > > > and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 20 09:48:45 2005
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:48:45 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420134845.GA11138@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050419232834.GA8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <02fb01c54539$c08ac720$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420003305.GB8668@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <031801c54543$a23784c0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420012035.GA8956@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <038401c5455d$42e053c0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420111924.GA9231@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <007601c5459c$f80acfc0$0408fea9@h6l3p> <20050420120204.GA10949@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <008f01c545a4$75e01520$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <008f01c545a4$75e01520$0408fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1525 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 26822
Lines: 755
But the irreplaceable value of a dog is a subjective matter. You can buy
and sell dogs, kill, barbecue and eat them without doing wrong. A human
life seems very different. While there are no doubt a variety of ways to
talk about that the modern tendency to put everything on a level so that
everything can be turned into an industrial process does suggest that
there's a reason to make the point in an emphatic way.
As to someone in a coma I don't think it's right to treat him as mere
matter. There should be that much awe in our relationship to a human
life. Why not have some awe in our relationship to a lot of things? How
else do you get a hierarchical understanding of reality? In the Laws for
example Plato says that if you can't successfully establish the
principle that sexual relations outside marriage are something one just
wouldn't do then you should at least establish the principle that it's
shameful to get caught, because then at least there's an element of awe
mixed into sexual attitudes. I think there's something to that.
As to the specifics of life and comas, I think the view is that you
can't intentionally end a human life, for example with a sawed-off
shotgun or a morphine overdose, but you don't have to continue medical
care that doesn't seem likely to do much and is burdensome and intrusive
in some way. For those purposes provision of food and water aren't
medical care. It seems odd to me to call that materialist
egalitarianism. It strikes me more as respect for a mystery.
jk
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:28:27AM -0400, la wrote:
>
> Well, considering some nose jobs I've seen, I'm tempted to say that
> there is an incomparable dignity in each human nose and it ought to be
> left alone. (joke.)
>
> As for the meaning of "incomparable," I think it does suggest something
> like "supreme." You say that it's probably better understood to mean
> "not exchangeable for something else." I don't think so. The life of a
> dog that you love is not exchangeable for something else. It is unique
> and irreplaceable. Does that give it an "incomparable" dignity and
> value? So I think "incomparable" does suggest something like "supreme,"
> something before which we stand in something like awe.
>
> However we define incomparable, are we really going to say that the life
> of a person in an irreversible coma has an "incomparable" dignity and
> value? That's JPII's position. It represents a materialist
> egalitarianism, based in divine revelation, but ending by exalting
> matter beyond its true place in things, as befits a man of Vatican II
> with its cult of modern, secular man, man who worships himself.
>
> I've blind copied Matt in this exchange.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:02.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> conservative?
>
>
> > I didn't say it was the only way to say murder is bad, just that it
> was
> > one way to say it. JP II liked dramatic gestures and statements. Also,
> > he was in fact confronted with a situation in which life and death are
> > increasingly treated as part of a rational industrial process (e.g.,
> > abortion, euthenasia, cloning) and he needed to say "no you can't do
> > that because there's something about a human life that's different
> from
> > a nose job."
> >
> > Part of it I suppose is the meaning of "incomparable." Your
> "idolizing"
> > suggests you're taking it to mean "supreme." I think it's probably
> > better understood to mean "not exchangeable for something else." So to
> > say that some values like human life are incomparable would be to say
> > that technological and capitalist values have their limits. The
> tendency
> > of modernity is to flatten everything out and put all things on the
> same
> > level and the Pope was saying you can't do that. Not everybody is all
> > that special compared with other human beings but compared with a dog
> or
> > forward contract in soybeans a human being is special and you can't
> deal
> > with him the same way.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:34:47AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > Without responding yet to your whole e-mail, I disagree that the
> only
> > > way to prevent murder is to say that each life has an "incomparable"
> > > value. I just think that is overstated. Each person is a unique
> center
> > > of being and consciousness. People have a right to their own life,
> a
> > > right not to be killed. But to say that each life has an
> "incomparable"
> > > value verges on idolizing man and making a cult of man, in my
> opinion.
> > > In fact, the "incomparable" phrase is consistent with lots of other
> > > statements, which you have seen, explicitly celebrating the cult of
> man,
> > > e.g. (not an exact quote) "We stand in awe and amazement at the
> > > incomparable dignity of man."
> > >
> > > Let's be serious: Lots of people are not that special.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:19.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> > > conservative?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I can't make detailed sense of his writings. I can say what I
> think
> > > his
> > > > general way of operating and overall loyalties are.
> > > >
> > > > As to the Gospel of Life, I think it's quite true that each
> individual
> > > > physical life has an incomparable value. Otherwise it would be
> legit
> > > to
> > > > kill people simply as a matter of policy, to get some overall
> benefit
> > > or
> > > > other.
> > > >
> > > > That isn't universal welfare statism because it says nothing about
> > > what
> > > > social organization is appropriate in light of the incomparable
> value
> > > of
> > > > human life. It would be universal welfare statism if he were a
> > > > technological rationalist, if he believed that once you define the
> > > goal
> > > > then the point is to organize things to guarantee achievement of
> that
> > > > goal.
> > > >
> > > > Suppose Benedict promulgates an encyclical the Gospel of the
> Afterlife
> > > > and says that the eternal well-being of every soul is an
> incomparable
> > > > value. Would that make him a universal theocrat who wants to burn
> > > > heretics?
> > > >
> > > > My answer is that there are lots of things that are goods and even
> > > > incomparable goods that ought to be taken into account, by
> government
> > > as
> > > > by everyone else, but the achievement of which can't be guaranteed
> by
> > > > social organization. If things were otherwise then the
> incomparable
> > > > importance of what each of us chooses morally and therefore the
> > > > incomparable value of human dignity would be lost.
> > > >
> > > > Here's JP II on the welfare state in Centesimus Annus:
> > > >
> > > > "In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development,
> in
> > > > exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute
> > > > function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or
> are
> > > > just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand.
> Such
> > > > supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons
> > > > touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to
> avoid
> > > > removing permanently from society and business systems the
> functions
> > > > which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging
> excessively
> > > the
> > > > sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and
> > > civil
> > > > freedom.
> > > >
> > > > "In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly
> expanded,
> > > to
> > > > the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare
> > > > State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond
> better
> > > > to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and
> > > deprivation
> > > > unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses,
> especially
> > > > in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the
> Welfare
> > > > State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and
> defects
> > > in
> > > > the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate
> > > > understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the
> > > principle
> > > > of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order
> > > should
> > > > not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower
> order,
> > > > depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support
> it in
> > > > case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the
> activities
> > > of
> > > > the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
> > > >
> > > > "By intervening directly and depriving society of its
> responsibility,
> > > > the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and
> an
> > > > inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more
> by
> > > > bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their
> > > clients,
> > > > and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:58:47PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, ok, you can't make much sense of JPII. But earlier you
> did
> > > seem to make at least some sense of him, when you said that his
> > > liberalism is adjectival, that he is a liberal Catholic, having a
> > > liberal slant directed toward genuine Christian concerns.
> > > > >
> > > > > >From various angles, I disagree. Take The Gospel of Life. In
> that
> > > encyclical, he starts out with God's creation of man and salvific
> > > purpose for man, but that is only prelude and passageway to his real
> > > purpose, which is to posit the "incomparable value" of every
> physical
> > > human life and make the protection of every individual life a NEW
> > > GOSPEL. As I see it, this is universal welfare statism, this is an
> > > EGALITARIAN ASSERTION OF THE EQUAL VALUE OF EVERY LIFE REGARDLESS OF
> ITS
> > > CONTENT, replacing the Christian way, which is not egalitarian.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, in other angles, in the amazingly contradictory soul of
> JPII,
> > > he had genuine devotion to God, but it was all mixed up with this
> > > genuinely LIBERAL stuff. In some ways, as you say, he was a liberal
> > > Catholic (adjectivally liberal, substantively Catholic). But in
> other
> > > ways, and I would argue that he was a Catholic liberal
> (adjectivially
> > > Catholic, substantively liberal).
> > > > >
> > > > > Certainly I see The Gospel of Life as the Catholic version of
> > > liberalism, Catholic liberalism: an assertion of the total material
> > > equality of all human beings and the need for an increasingly global
> > > state to protect and defend all material human beings from
> oppression.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:20.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and
> substantively
> > > conservative?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I really can't discuss the thought of JP II because I don't
> know
> > > or
> > > > > > understand much of it. It seems to me that Veritatis Splendor
> is a
> > > > > > useful piece. The speech on immigration on the other hand that
> I
> > > wrote
> > > > > > about is a bizarre piece. Other things it seems to me sort of
> > > bobble
> > > > > > around. Don't ask me what they mean.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think he wanted very much to connect to everybody and every
> > > possible
> > > > > > tendency of thought. Quite likely you could extract a
> philosophy
> > > of
> > > > > > neoconservatism out of his writings but you could no doubt
> extract
> > > some
> > > > > > other philosophy from them too. It seems to me that the man
> > > himself in
> > > > > > his ultimate loyalty was a Catholic rather than a neocon.
> There's
> > > no
> > > > > > such thing as a heroic or saintly neocon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:55:16PM -0400, la
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and says
> > > > > > > > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for
> the
> > > priest
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > turn around and face the congregation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He's said that? That's great! That's the single most
> important
> > > thing
> > > > > > > IMO. By which I mean, the turning around to face the
> > > congregation is
> > > > > > > the single greatest act of harm that has been done to the
> > > Christian
> > > > > > > liturgy, emanating out, not just through Christianity but
> our
> > > entire
> > > > > > > culture, destroying the sense of the sacred in every
> dimension
> > > of life
> > > > > > > and society.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But getting back to our topic, it seems to me that what you
> are
> > > > > > > articulating is the converse of neoconservatism.
> > > Neoconservatism means
> > > > > > > conservative form with liberal substance. But what you're
> > > describing is
> > > > > > > liberal form with conservative substance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where does this leave my view of JPII as the philosopher of
> > > > > > > neoconservatism? Do you agree with my 2002 article of that
> > > name?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Further, is what you're saying true? My thesis on JP is
> that he
> > > sounds
> > > > > > > conservative on culture, because he speaks of the importance
> of
> > > culture.
> > > > > > > But he defines culture solely in terms of the individual
> person.
> > > This
> > > > > > > is conservative form with liberal substance, i.e.,
> > > neoconservatism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is your reply to this? Perhaps the answer is that JPII
> was
> > > neocon
> > > > > > > on some issues, like culture, but the converse of neocon (a
> > > condition
> > > > > > > for which we don't yet have a name) on other issues, like
> Church
> > > > > > > doctrine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:33.p.m.
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and
> > > substantively
> > > > > > > conservative?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sounds like a similar situation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With the two popes you have men who are post WW II
> European
> > > > > > > > intellectuals, and in the case of JP II an actor and
> dramatist
> > > who
> > > > > > > > wanted to reach audiences. So they chose whenever they
> could
> > > to
> > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > what they had to say by reference to the categories now
> > > accepted and
> > > > > > > > taken for granted. That was a lot of the Vatican II idea
> by
> > > the way.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > problem with that idea in general is that unless you have
> a
> > > very
> > > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > > grip on what it is you're trying to present the
> presentation
> > > will
> > > > > > > > corrupt the substance. It won't always corrupt the
> substance
> > > though
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > there will be a lot of ambiguous cases where it really
> isn't
> > > clear
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > what's being presented.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think Benedict has pulled back much more from the Vat II
> > > idea than
> > > > > > > JP
> > > > > > > > II had. He's very favorable to the Tridentine mass for
> example
> > > and
> > > > > > > says
> > > > > > > > it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for
> the
> > > priest
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > turn around and face the congregation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:44:36PM -0400, la
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ok, we're articulating a new phenom here. Actually it's
> > > quite
> > > > > > > common.
> > > > > > > > > It comes down to putting a liberal front and message on
> > > something
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > is essentially conservative.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For example, a few years ago I went to an art exhibit at
> the
> > > > > > > Brooklyn
> > > > > > > > > Museum, it's title was something like "The Multicultural
> New
> > > World
> > > > > > > Art,"
> > > > > > > > > or "Multicultural Spanish American Art."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But in fact, the entire exhibit consisted of
> conventional
> > > > > > > > > Christian-themed paintings and statues, from Peru,
> Mexico
> > > and so on.
> > > > > > > > > Many of them quite wonderful and unlike Christian
> European
> > > art, but
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > different from them either in any essential sense.
> There
> > > was
> > > > > > > NOTHING
> > > > > > > > > multicutlural here. Most of the artists, in fact, were
> not
> > > Indian
> > > > > > > > > converts to Christianity, but European colonists and
> > > transplants in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > New World.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it was a traditional exhibit of Christian art, but it
> > > presented
> > > > > > > > > itself as a multicultural exhibit. Procedurally it was
> > > liberal,
> > > > > > > > > substantively it was conservative.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a general motif one finds a lot. It would be
> > > interesting to
> > > > > > > > > write an article about it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does this fit with what you're describing vis a vis the
> two
> > > popes?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict
> XVI
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > An example would be JP II's kissing the Koran and
> while
> > > also
> > > > > > > backing
> > > > > > > > > > Ratzinger's Dominus Iesu. He expresses his respect and
> > > reverence
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > what truth there is in another religion in the most
> > > extreme way
> > > > > > > > > > imaginable while also insisting that the full and
> > > necessary truth
> > > > > > > > > > regarding what is needed for salvation is in Jesus
> Christ
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > Catholicism. Another would be JP II's pronouncement,
> which
> > > > > > > Ratzinger
> > > > > > > > > > pronounced (evidently correctly) ex cathedra and
> > > infallible, that
> > > > > > > > > women
> > > > > > > > > > can't be priests even though he put a feminist or at
> least
> > > > > > > pro-female
> > > > > > > > > > spin on things to the extent he could.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:13:35PM -0400, Lawrence
> Auster
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is provocative. If, as you say, they take a
> > > liberal, or
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > extreme liberal slant on a substantive ultimate
> concern
> > > that is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > liberal, how is that to be understood? Is it still,
> as
> > > I have
> > > > > > > > > argued,
> > > > > > > > > > > analogous to neoconservatism? Or is it something
> else?
> > > I argue
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > neoconservatism means havng a conservative-seeming
> > > loyalty to a
> > > > > > > > > > > substantial thing, like America, but redefining
> America
> > > in
> > > > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > > > > terms, so it's really a form of liberalism
> presenting it
> > > self as
> > > > > > > > > > > conservatism. The ultimate concern is a liberal
> process
> > > such as
> > > > > > > > > > > democracy, elections, equality. But these two
> popes'
> > > ultimate
> > > > > > > > > concern,
> > > > > > > > > > > you are suggesting, is substantive: God, salvation,
> the
> > > kingdom
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > heaven. So it appears that my analogy to
> > > neoconservatism breaks
> > > > > > > > > down.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But, in order to understand this better, could you
> give
> > > an
> > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > how they take a liberal slant on a non-liberal
> ultimate
> > > concern?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday,
> > > April 19,
> > > > > > > 2005
> > > > > > > > > > > 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic"
> > > over
> > > > > > > Benedict
> > > > > > > > > XVI
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This strikes me as part of the intellectual and
> moral
> > > collapse
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked
> about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand it's worth saying that although
> JP
> > > II and
> > > > > > > > > Benedict
> > > > > > > > > > > > XvI
> > > > > > > > > > > > are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP
> II)
> > > extreme
> > > > > > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > > > > > Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the
> end
> > > their
> > > > > > > > > liberalism
> > > > > > > > > > > > is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines
> what
> > > slant
> > > > > > > > > they'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > take on their ultimate concern but not their
> ultimate
> > > concern
> > > > > > > > > itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > for them it's not true that freedom and equality
> trump
> > > > > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > > > > everything. And that's what liberalism now
> demands.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, Lawrence
> > > Auster
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I
> > > drafted
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > VFR, not posted yet.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted
> > > coverage,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is seriously unhappy with the election of
> Cardinal
> > > Ratzinger
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the
> > > Reuter's
> > > > > > > story
> > > > > > > > > gives
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal
> > > Joseph
> > > > > > > Ratzinger
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice
> that
> > > delighted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned
> moderates
> > > hoping
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea
> are
> > > repeated
> > > > > > > > > numerous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > times in the course of the article. The irony,
> of
> > > course, is
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in
> > > reality a
> > > > > > > > > liberal,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved
> further
> > > to the
> > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of
> an
> > > early
> > > > > > > '60s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism
> of
> > > the late
> > > > > > > > > '60s.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an
> > > "arch-conservative," a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox
> > > legacy,"
> > > > > > > "John
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years,"
> "too
> > > divisive
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe,"
> "expected
> > > to take
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > tough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > line against reformist trends," a man whose
> "stern
> > > > > > > leadership
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > delighted conservative Catholics but upset
> moderates
> > > ... "
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > really all comes down to God and sex. A man can
> be a
> > > liberal
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > whole range of issues, but if he believes in God
> and
> > > takes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > religious morality seriously, then he's a
> > > right-winger. Thus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > William Jennings Bryan, the father of the
> modern,
> > > > > > > progressive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in
> liberal
> > > circles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because he believed in God and religious
> morality.
> > > > > > > Similarly,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > President Bush, a radical liberal on everything
> from
> > > open
> > > > > > > > > borders
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to universal democratism, believes in God and
> > > religious
> > > > > > > > > morality,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 20 18:02:26 2005
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:02:26 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively conservative?
Message-ID: <20050420220226.GA12732@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <005001c545ef$a8a038a0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <005001c545ef$a8a038a0$0408fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1528 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 30459
Lines: 822
Actually, I don't understand your point. If you want to say there are
radical problems in the Church that's fine. Also, if you want to say
there were radical problems with JP II's philosophy, theology,
pronouncements, symbolic actions and whatnot that's fine too. I don't
think I've contested any of that.
If you have a basic problem with JP II the man and his fundamental
orientation, which ought to determine how in the end we interpret the
things he says when evaluating him as a man and when determining what
the ultimately correct interpretation of his often puzzling statements
ought to be, then you ought to have a basic problem with JP II's great
admirer and closest collaborator as well.
jk
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:26:44PM -0400, la wrote:
> I want to make my point crystal clear. Both of you accept as a matter of=
course that the West has perverted itself and may be dying. But you impli=
citly reject the possibility that the Church, which is the very nucleus of =
the West, has perverted itself and may be dying. This is not logical. Cat=
holic defensiveness toward the institution of the Church prevents the radic=
al critique that is needed to save our civilization. =20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: la=20
> To: Matt Freivald=20
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:19.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively con=
servative?
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What you guys don't seem to understand is that, given that the West is =
in mortal crisis, the Church is also in mortal crisis. If the West has gon=
e terribly wrong and has become the opposite of itself and is destroying it=
self, it stands to reason that the same is true of the Church itself, doesn=
't it? Further, the wrongness in the Church is a major factor in the large=
r civilizational crisis. But you guys want to have it both ways--being cri=
tical of the liberal excesses of the Church, while at the same time demonst=
rating that impenetrable Catholic defensiveness toward the institution of t=
he Church itself. As a result, your criticisms of the Church always cancel=
themselves out in the end, always fall short of the real problem, which is=
that the Church, as much as the West of which it is the matrix and parent,=
has gone terribly wrong and in certain key respects has become the opposit=
e of itself. This is expressed most clearly in the religion of man and the=
"Gospel of Life," a new, man-made and man-centered gospel replacing the ol=
d gospel. =20
>=20
> It follows that since the Church has gone RADICALLY wrong, only RADICAL=
criticism can have any hope of straightening it out. =20
>=20
> I'm not saying all is lost. I'm thrilled by aspects of the new pope th=
at have been emerging. Read my laudatory discussion of the homily that he =
delivered at the opening of the conclave on Monday (which already seems a m=
onth ago). =20
>=20
> http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003334.html
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: la=20
> To: Matt Freivald=20
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:51.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively c=
onservative?
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Matt,
>=20
> You're not making an argument. You're just pronouncing that anyone w=
ho says what I say has hubris. =20
>=20
> You're not responding to my argument, which is that "incomparable" su=
ggests the superlative, the highest. The implication of those who insist o=
n such language is that in the absence of such superlatives, we'll start ma=
ss euthanasia programs. This represents a vulgarization of thought. The b=
asic rights of human beings, in our commonsense English-American tradition,=
are expressed in straightforward, modest language, not puffed up exaggerat=
ed language. That unpretentious language has been more protective of right=
s than any other. But now, in the manner of modern liberals, in order to e=
xpand everyone's rights, the Church feels compelled to jack up everybody's =
claim to specialness, so that nobody is special. Everyone is exactly equal=
ly fantastic, equally wonderful, equally incomparable--even a person who is=
brain dead. And this, according to The Gospel of Life, becomes the main a=
nd highest calling of Christians. The divine origin of humans is used to e=
stablish the superlative specialness of every physical human life, and then=
(as you will see by reading the Introduction of The Gospel of Life) that =
physical life suddenly becomes the end in itself. The protection of all ph=
ysical human life from oppression becomes the new gospel, replacing the act=
ual gospel which is life in Christ and the kingdom of heaven. The material=
replaces the spiritual as the ultimate concern. Among other bad consequen=
ces, this totalistic egalitarianism of all human life as human life logical=
ly leads to the prohibition of the death penalty, an indispensable foundati=
on of civilization. =20
>=20
> I call this position Catholic liberalism, with Catholic as the modifi=
er, and liberalism as the substantive concern. I thought you of all people=
would appreciate my analysis. =20
>=20
> Larry
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Matt Freivald=20
> To: la=20
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:21.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively=
conservative?
>=20
>=20
> Larry,
>=20
> However we define incomparable, are we really going to say that the life =
of a person in an irreversible coma has an "incomparable" dignity and value=
?Yes, actually. Why would we have the hubris to say something else?
>=20
> Matt
>=20
> la wrote:=20
> Well, considering some nose jobs I've seen, I'm tempted to say that
> there is an incomparable dignity in each human nose and it ought to be
> left alone. (joke.)
>=20
> As for the meaning of "incomparable," I think it does suggest something
> like "supreme." You say that it's probably better understood to mean
> "not exchangeable for something else." I don't think so. The life of a
> dog that you love is not exchangeable for something else. It is unique
> and irreplaceable. Does that give it an "incomparable" dignity and
> value? So I think "incomparable" does suggest something like "supreme,"
> something before which we stand in something like awe.
>=20
> However we define incomparable, are we really going to say that the life
> of a person in an irreversible coma has an "incomparable" dignity and
> value? That's JPII's position. It represents a materialist
> egalitarianism, based in divine revelation, but ending by exalting
> matter beyond its true place in things, as befits a man of Vatican II
> with its cult of modern, secular man, man who worships himself.
>=20
> I've blind copied Matt in this exchange.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:02.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> conservative?
>=20
>=20
> I didn't say it was the only way to say murder is bad, just that it
> was
> one way to say it. JP II liked dramatic gestures and statements. Also,
> he was in fact confronted with a situation in which life and death are
> increasingly treated as part of a rational industrial process (e.g.,
> abortion, euthenasia, cloning) and he needed to say "no you can't do
> that because there's something about a human life that's different
> from
> a nose job."
>=20
> Part of it I suppose is the meaning of "incomparable." Your
> "idolizing"
> suggests you're taking it to mean "supreme." I think it's probably
> better understood to mean "not exchangeable for something else." So to
> say that some values like human life are incomparable would be to say
> that technological and capitalist values have their limits. The
> tendency
> of modernity is to flatten everything out and put all things on the
> same
> level and the Pope was saying you can't do that. Not everybody is all
> that special compared with other human beings but compared with a dog
> or
> forward contract in soybeans a human being is special and you can't
> deal
> with him the same way.
>=20
> jk
>=20
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:34:47AM -0400, la wrote:
> Without responding yet to your whole e-mail, I disagree that the
> only
> way to prevent murder is to say that each life has an "incomparable"
> value. I just think that is overstated. Each person is a unique
> center
> of being and consciousness. People have a right to their own life,
> a
> right not to be killed. But to say that each life has an
> "incomparable"
> value verges on idolizing man and making a cult of man, in my
> opinion.
> In fact, the "incomparable" phrase is consistent with lots of other
> statements, which you have seen, explicitly celebrating the cult of
> man,
> e.g. (not an exact quote) "We stand in awe and amazement at the
> incomparable dignity of man."
>=20
> Let's be serious: Lots of people are not that special.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:19.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and substantively
> conservative?
>=20
>=20
> I can't make detailed sense of his writings. I can say what I
> think
> his
> general way of operating and overall loyalties are.
>=20
> As to the Gospel of Life, I think it's quite true that each
> individual
> physical life has an incomparable value. Otherwise it would be
> legit
> to
> kill people simply as a matter of policy, to get some overall
> benefit
> or
> other.
>=20
> That isn't universal welfare statism because it says nothing about
> what
> social organization is appropriate in light of the incomparable
> value
> of
> human life. It would be universal welfare statism if he were a
> technological rationalist, if he believed that once you define the
> goal
> then the point is to organize things to guarantee achievement of
> that
> goal.
>=20
> Suppose Benedict promulgates an encyclical the Gospel of the
> Afterlife
> and says that the eternal well-being of every soul is an
> incomparable
> value. Would that make him a universal theocrat who wants to burn
> heretics?
>=20
> My answer is that there are lots of things that are goods and even
> incomparable goods that ought to be taken into account, by
> government
> as
> by everyone else, but the achievement of which can't be guaranteed
> by
> social organization. If things were otherwise then the
> incomparable
> importance of what each of us chooses morally and therefore the
> incomparable value of human dignity would be lost.
>=20
> Here's JP II on the welfare state in Centesimus Annus:
>=20
> "In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development,
> in
> exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute
> function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or
> are
> just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand.
> Such
> supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons
> touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to
> avoid
> removing permanently from society and business systems the
> functions
> which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging
> excessively
> the
> sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and
> civil
> freedom.
>=20
> "In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly
> expanded,
> to
> the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare
> State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond
> better
> to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and
> deprivation
> unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses,
> especially
> in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the
> Welfare
> State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and
> defects
> in
> the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate
> understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the
> principle
> of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order
> should
> not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower
> order,
> depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support
> it in
> case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the
> activities
> of
> the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
>=20
> "By intervening directly and depriving society of its
> responsibility,
> the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and
> an
> inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more
> by
> bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their
> clients,
> and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."
>=20
> jk
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:58:47PM -0400, la wrote:
> Well, ok, you can't make much sense of JPII. But earlier you
> did
> seem to make at least some sense of him, when you said that his
> liberalism is adjectival, that he is a liberal Catholic, having a
> liberal slant directed toward genuine Christian concerns.
> >From various angles, I disagree. Take The Gospel of Life. In
> that
> encyclical, he starts out with God's creation of man and salvific
> purpose for man, but that is only prelude and passageway to his real
> purpose, which is to posit the "incomparable value" of every
> physical
> human life and make the protection of every individual life a NEW
> GOSPEL. As I see it, this is universal welfare statism, this is an
> EGALITARIAN ASSERTION OF THE EQUAL VALUE OF EVERY LIFE REGARDLESS OF
> ITS
> CONTENT, replacing the Christian way, which is not egalitarian.
> Yes, in other angles, in the amazingly contradictory soul of
> JPII,
> he had genuine devotion to God, but it was all mixed up with this
> genuinely LIBERAL stuff. In some ways, as you say, he was a liberal
> Catholic (adjectivally liberal, substantively Catholic). But in
> other
> ways, and I would argue that he was a Catholic liberal
> (adjectivially
> Catholic, substantively liberal).
> Certainly I see The Gospel of Life as the Catholic version of
> liberalism, Catholic liberalism: an assertion of the total mat=
erial
> equality of all human beings and the need for an increasingly global
> state to protect and defend all material human beings from
> oppression.
> =20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:20.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and
> substantively
> conservative?
> I really can't discuss the thought of JP II because I don=
't
> know
> or
> understand much of it. It seems to me that Veritatis Splendor
> is a
> useful piece. The speech on immigration on the other hand that
> I
> wrote
> about is a bizarre piece. Other things it seems to me sort of
> bobble
> around. Don't ask me what they mean.
>=20
> I think he wanted very much to connect to everybody and every
> possible
> tendency of thought. Quite likely you could extract a
> philosophy
> of
> neoconservatism out of his writings but you could no doubt
> extract
> some
> other philosophy from them too. It seems to me that the man
> himself in
> his ultimate loyalty was a Catholic rather than a neocon.
> There's
> no
> such thing as a heroic or saintly neocon.
>=20
> jk
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:55:16PM -0400, la
> wrote:
> and says
> it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for
> the
> priest
> to
> turn around and face the congregation.
>=20
> He's said that? That's great! That's the single most
> important
> thing
> IMO. By which I mean, the turning around to face the
> congregation is
> the single greatest act of harm that has been done to the
> Christian
> liturgy, emanating out, not just through Christianity but
> our
> entire
> culture, destroying the sense of the sacred in every
> dimension
> of life
> and society.
>=20
> But getting back to our topic, it seems to me that what you
> are
> articulating is the converse of neoconservatism.
> Neoconservatism means
> conservative form with liberal substance. But what you're
> describing is
> liberal form with conservative substance.
>=20
> Where does this leave my view of JPII as the philosopher of
> neoconservatism? Do you agree with my 2002 article of that
> name?
> Further, is what you're saying true? My thesis on JP is
> that he
> sounds
> conservative on culture, because he speaks of the importance
> of
> culture.
> But he defines culture solely in terms of the individual
> person.
> This
> is conservative form with liberal substance, i.e.,
> neoconservatism.
> What is your reply to this? Perhaps the answer is that JPII
> was
> neocon
> on some issues, like culture, but the converse of neocon (a
> condition
> for which we don't yet have a name) on other issues, like
> Church
> doctrine.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:33.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Is the new pope procedurally liberal and
> substantively
> conservative?
>=20
>=20
> Sounds like a similar situation.
>=20
> With the two popes you have men who are post WW II
> European
> intellectuals, and in the case of JP II an actor and
> dramatist
> who
> wanted to reach audiences. So they chose whenever they
> could
> to
> present
> what they had to say by reference to the categories now
> accepted and
> taken for granted. That was a lot of the Vatican II idea
> by
> the way.
> The
> problem with that idea in general is that unless you have
> a
> very
> strong
> grip on what it is you're trying to present the
> presentation
> will
> corrupt the substance. It won't always corrupt the
> substance
> though
> and
> there will be a lot of ambiguous cases where it really
> isn't
> clear
> just
> what's being presented.
>=20
> I think Benedict has pulled back much more from the Vat II
> idea than
> JP
> II had. He's very favorable to the Tridentine mass for
> example
> and
> says
> it was a big mistake to eliminate the silent parts and for
> the
> priest
> to
> turn around and face the congregation.
>=20
> jk
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:44:36PM -0400, la
> wrote:
> Ok, we're articulating a new phenom here. Actually it's
> quite
> common.
> It comes down to putting a liberal front and message on
> something
> that
> is essentially conservative.
>=20
> For example, a few years ago I went to an art exhibit at
> the
> Brooklyn
> Museum, it's title was something like "The Multicultural
> New
> World
> Art,"
> or "Multicultural Spanish American Art."
>=20
> But in fact, the entire exhibit consisted of
> conventional
> Christian-themed paintings and statues, from Peru,
> Mexico
> and so on.
> Many of them quite wonderful and unlike Christian
> European
> art, but
> not
> different from them either in any essential sense.
> There
> was
> NOTHING
> multicutlural here. Most of the artists, in fact, were
> not
> Indian
> converts to Christianity, but European colonists and
> transplants in
> the
> New World.
>=20
> So it was a traditional exhibit of Christian art, but it
> presented
> itself as a multicultural exhibit. Procedurally it was
> liberal,
> substantively it was conservative.
>=20
> This is a general motif one finds a lot. It would be
> interesting to
> write an article about it.
>=20
> Does this fit with what you're describing vis a vis the
> two
> popes?
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict
> XVI
> An example would be JP II's kissing the Koran and
> while
> also
> backing
> Ratzinger's Dominus Iesu. He expresses his respect and
> reverence
> for
> what truth there is in another religion in the most
> extreme way
> imaginable while also insisting that the full and
> necessary truth
> regarding what is needed for salvation is in Jesus
> Christ
> and
> Catholicism. Another would be JP II's pronouncement,
> which
> Ratzinger
> pronounced (evidently correctly) ex cathedra and
> infallible, that
> women
> can't be priests even though he put a feminist or at
> least
> pro-female
> spin on things to the extent he could.
>=20
> jk
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:13:35PM -0400, Lawrence
> Auster
> wrote:
> This is provocative. If, as you say, they take a
> liberal, or
> even
> extreme liberal slant on a substantive ultimate
> concern
> that is
> not
> liberal, how is that to be understood? Is it still,
> as
> I have
> argued,
> analogous to neoconservatism? Or is it something
> else?
> I argue
> that
> neoconservatism means havng a conservative-seeming
> loyalty to a
> substantial thing, like America, but redefining
> America
> in
> liberal
> terms, so it's really a form of liberalism
> presenting it
> self as
> conservatism. The ultimate concern is a liberal
> process
> such as
> democracy, elections, equality. But these two
> popes'
> ultimate
> concern,
> you are suggesting, is substantive: God, salvation,
> the
> kingdom
> of
> heaven. So it appears that my analogy to
> neoconservatism breaks
> down.
> But, in order to understand this better, could you
> give
> an
> example
> of
> how they take a liberal slant on a non-liberal
> ultimate
> concern?
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Tuesday,
> April 19,
> 2005
> 7:02.p.m. Subject: Re: Reuters' "conservative panic"
> over
> Benedict
> XVI
> This strikes me as part of the intellectual and
> moral
> collapse
> of
> the
> Left into a sort of insanity that we've talked
> about.
> On the other hand it's worth saying that although
> JP
> II and
> Benedict
> XvI
> are liberal Catholics, in some ways (especially JP
> II)
> extreme
> liberal
> Catholics, they are not really "liberals." In the
> end
> their
> liberalism
> is adjectival rather than substantive. It defines
> what
> slant
> they'll
> take on their ultimate concern but not their
> ultimate
> concern
> itself.
> So
> for them it's not true that freedom and equality
> trump
> absolutely
> everything. And that's what liberalism now
> demands.
> jk
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:25PM -0400, Lawrence
> Auster
> wrote:
> After reading the Reuter's article you linked, I
> drafted
> this
> for
> VFR, not posted yet.
>=20
> Reuters' "conservative panic" over Benedict XVI
>=20
> As seen in Reuters' laughably biased and bigoted
> coverage,
> the
> left
> is seriously unhappy with the election of
> Cardinal
> Ratzinger
> as
> Pope Benedict XVI. The opening sentence of the
> Reuter's
> story
> gives
> the flavor: "Arch-conservative German cardinal
> Joseph
> Ratzinger
> was
> elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice
> that
> delighted
> traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned
> moderates
> hoping
> for
> a
> more liberal papacy." Variations of that idea
> are
> repeated
> numerous
> times in the course of the article. The irony,
> of
> course, is
> that
> Ratzinger, far from being a conservative, is in
> reality a
> liberal,
> namely a man of Vatican II who has not moved
> further
> to the
> left
> since then. Ratzinger is thus the equivalent of
> an
> early
> '60s
> liberal who rejected the radicalized liberalism
> of
> the late
> '60s.
> This makes him, in Reuter's eyes, an
> "arch-conservative," a
> defender of Pope John Paul II's "strict orthodox
> legacy,"
> "John
> Paul's tough doctrinal watchdog for 23 years,"
> "too
> divisive
> and
> too old to become Pope," "a catastrophe,"
> "expected
> to take
> a
> tough
> line against reformist trends," a man whose
> "stern
> leadership
> ...
> delighted conservative Catholics but upset
> moderates
> ... "
> It
> really all comes down to God and sex. A man can
> be a
> liberal
> on
> a
> whole range of issues, but if he believes in God
> and
> takes
> religious morality seriously, then he's a
> right-winger. Thus
> William Jennings Bryan, the father of the
> modern,
> progressive
> Democratic party, is a figure of contempt in
> liberal
> circles
> because he believed in God and religious
> morality.
> Similarly,
> President Bush, a radical liberal on everything
> from
> open
> borders
> to universal democratism, believes in God and
> religious
> morality,
> and so liberals see him as an arch-conservative.
> --=20
> Jim Kalb
> Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
> =20
>=20
--=20
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 23 06:28:09 2005
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 06:28:09 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: On the amazing lockstep uniformity of mainstream journalists regarding the new pope
Message-ID: <20050423102809.GA23714@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <001301c547c1$984a6600$5f12fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001301c547c1$984a6600$5f12fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1532 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2814
Lines: 74
Part of it is what's needed for a mass media immediate response
journalistic world. For that world to function at all, there has to be
instant consensus on the nature and meaning of every event and person so
participants can recognize what's news, how important it is and what it
means.
Basically, they all have to believe in the same story to the extent that
the story constitutes simple reality for them. And since it's thousands
upon thousands of journalists and publications responding independently
to an infinite range of events in a way that lets news consumers take in
and digest what they're told without much attention or effort, the
collective story has to determine basically everything in advance in a
very simple way leaving only a few blanks to fill in the
particularities.
jk
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:01:58AM -0400, la wrote:
>
> This may be of interest.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: la
> To: Mark Achord
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:00.a.m.
> Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
>
>
>
> It's amazing. Thousands of journalists and their editors, each writing EXACTLY THE SAME STORY, USING EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS AND PHRASES, over and over, and it never seems to occur to even one of them, "Gosh, I'm writing exactly the same story, using exactly the same phrases as thousands of other reporters, maybe there's a different approach to this?"
>
> No. That doesn't occur to even one of them.
>
> Think of it, thousands of minds operating in absolute, lockstep uniformity, with nobody thinking.
>
> The humor of the situation doesn't even occur to any of them. Not one has the ability to step back even one inch from the situation and look at it objectively.
>
> This is absolute proof of that liberalism is an all-embracing ideology, that liberalism is the only legitimate language in liberal society.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Achord
> To: la
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:22.a.m.
> Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
>
>
> Ha! I know...the column is worth its weight in humor. I knew it would be a winner when I found the word "diverse" in the second paragraph.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: la
> To: Mark Achord
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:17 AM
> Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
>
>
> Ho hum, a journalist finding liberal Catholics to tell the Pope that Catholicism ought to be abandoned ...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Achord
> To: la
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:10.p.m.
> Subject: the Great Schism?
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/faces.church/index.html
>
>
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 23 08:28:40 2005
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:28:40 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: On the amazing lockstep uniformity of mainstream journalists regarding the new pope
Message-ID: <20050423122840.GC23714@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <001301c547c1$984a6600$5f12fea9@h6l3p> <20050423102809.GA23714@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <001901c547fd$0f129060$ddfcfea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001901c547fd$0f129060$ddfcfea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1533 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 5348
Lines: 111
But producing something at odds with the accepted story line is a lot of
work and besides the amount and kind of attention you and your
publication get depend on how the story line classifies you. If you want
to succeed you play your role within the system.
jk
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:07:41AM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> So, along with the current use of "democracy," it's another application of the Oakeshott theory in Rationalism and Politics: the reduction of things to simplified formulae for easy dissemination, marketing, and social control.
>
> However, that theory still doesn't answer my question. Nothing is forcing all those thousands of editors and reporters to act like social insects and mimic each other exactly. It's not as though the liberal social order would collapse if one newspaper did a story on Pope Benedict which instead of taking the same line of evaluating Benedict from the point of view of liberalism, just told about his beliefs and record in a fresh way.
>
> So I think there's a deeper reason than what you've suggested here, and it's an argument you've made yourself many times: in liberal society, liberalism is the only permissible way to think and view the world. "Is so-and so conforming to liberalism or not?" "How far out of step with liberalism is he?" These are simply the only interesting questions with regard to any important public figure, especially the head of the Catholic church, the main non-liberal organization remaining in the world. The Church, by its existence and by the persistence of its core beliefs about morality, is an obstacle, a challenge, and an offense against liberalism. Therefore it must change, and therefore the liberal media must keep pushing it to change, and must keep denying its legitimacy insofar as it remains what it is.
>
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:28.a.m.
> Subject: Re: On the amazing lockstep uniformity of mainstream
> journalists regarding the new pope
>
> > Part of it is what's needed for a mass media immediate response
> > journalistic world. For that world to function at all, there has to be
> > instant consensus on the nature and meaning of every event and person
> > so participants can recognize what's news, how important it is and
> > what it means.
> >
> > Basically, they all have to believe in the same story to the extent
> > that the story constitutes simple reality for them. And since it's
> > thousands upon thousands of journalists and publications responding
> > independently to an infinite range of events in a way that lets news
> > consumers take in and digest what they're told without much attention
> > or effort, the collective story has to determine basically everything
> > in advance in a very simple way leaving only a few blanks to fill in
> > the particularities.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:01:58AM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > > This may be of interest.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Mark Achord
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:00.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's amazing. Thousands of journalists and their editors, each
> > > writing EXACTLY THE SAME STORY, USING EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS
> > > AND PHRASES, over and over, and it never seems to occur to even one
> > > of them, "Gosh, I'm writing exactly the same story, using exactly
> > > the same phrases as thousands of other reporters, maybe there's a
> > > different approach to this?"
> > >
> > > No. That doesn't occur to even one of them.
> > >
> > > Think of it, thousands of minds operating in absolute, lockstep
> > > uniformity, with nobody thinking.
> > >
> > > The humor of the situation doesn't even occur to any of them. Not
> > > one has the ability to step back even one inch from the situation
> > > and look at it objectively.
> > >
> > > This is absolute proof of that liberalism is an all-embracing
> > > ideology, that liberalism is the only legitimate language in
> > > liberal society.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Mark Achord
> > > To: la
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:22.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
> > >
> > >
> > > Ha! I know...the column is worth its weight in humor. I knew it
> > > would be a winner when I found the word "diverse" in the second
> > > paragraph.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Mark Achord
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
> > >
> > >
> > > Ho hum, a journalist finding liberal Catholics to tell the Pope
> > > that Catholicism ought to be abandoned ...
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Mark Achord
> > > To: la
> > > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:10.p.m.
> > > Subject: the Great Schism?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/faces.church/index.html
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 23 09:22:59 2005
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:22:59 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: On the amazing lockstep uniformity of mainstream journalists regarding the new pope
Message-ID: <20050423132259.GD23714@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <001301c547c1$984a6600$5f12fea9@h6l3p> <20050423102809.GA23714@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <001901c547fd$0f129060$ddfcfea9@h6l3p> <20050423122840.GC23714@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <003601c54806$461df820$ddfcfea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <003601c54806$461df820$ddfcfea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1534 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 6461
Lines: 156
Sure. I should add that you're right of course that the system's need
for coherence so it can function doesn't explain everything. It just
seems to me it's an important piece of the picture.
jk
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 09:13:38AM -0400, la wrote:
> Jim, I'd like to post our exchange. I assume that's ok.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:28.a.m.
> Subject: Re: On the amazing lockstep uniformity of mainstream
> journalists regarding the new pope
>
> > But producing something at odds with the accepted story line is a lot
> > of work and besides the amount and kind of attention you and your
> > publication get depend on how the story line classifies you. If you
> > want to succeed you play your role within the system.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:07:41AM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So, along with the current use of "democracy," it's another
> > > application of the Oakeshott theory in Rationalism and Politics:
> > > the reduction of things to simplified formulae for easy
> > > dissemination, marketing, and social control.
> > >
> > > However, that theory still doesn't answer my question. Nothing is
> > > forcing all those thousands of editors and reporters to act like
> > > social insects and mimic each other exactly. It's not as though
> > > the liberal social order would collapse if one newspaper did a
> > > story on Pope Benedict which instead of taking the same line of
> > > evaluating Benedict from the point of view of liberalism, just told
> > > about his beliefs and record in a fresh way.
> > >
> > > So I think there's a deeper reason than what you've suggested here,
> > > and it's an argument you've made yourself many times: in liberal
> > > society, liberalism is the only permissible way to think and view
> > > the world. "Is so-and so conforming to liberalism or not?" "How
> > > far out of step with liberalism is he?" These are simply the only
> > > interesting questions with regard to any important public figure,
> > > especially the head of the Catholic church, the main non-liberal
> > > organization remaining in the world. The Church, by its existence
> > > and by the persistence of its core beliefs about morality, is an
> > > obstacle, a challenge, and an offense against liberalism.
> > > Therefore it must change, and therefore the liberal media must keep
> > > pushing it to change, and must keep denying its legitimacy insofar
> > > as it remains what it is.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005
> > > 6:28.a.m. Subject: Re: On the amazing lockstep uniformity of
> > > mainstream journalists regarding the new pope
> > >
> > > > Part of it is what's needed for a mass media immediate response
> > > > journalistic world. For that world to function at all, there has
> > > > to be instant consensus on the nature and meaning of every event
> > > > and person so participants can recognize what's news, how
> > > > important it is and what it means.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, they all have to believe in the same story to the
> > > > extent that the story constitutes simple reality for them. And
> > > > since it's thousands upon thousands of journalists and
> > > > publications responding independently to an infinite range of
> > > > events in a way that lets news consumers take in and digest what
> > > > they're told without much attention or effort, the collective
> > > > story has to determine basically everything in advance in a very
> > > > simple way leaving only a few blanks to fill in the
> > > > particularities.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:01:58AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This may be of interest.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Mark Achord
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:00.a.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's amazing. Thousands of journalists and their editors, each
> > > > > writing EXACTLY THE SAME STORY, USING EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS
> > > > > AND PHRASES, over and over, and it never seems to occur to even
> > > > > one of them, "Gosh, I'm writing exactly the same story, using
> > > > > exactly the same phrases as thousands of other reporters, maybe
> > > > > there's a different approach to this?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No. That doesn't occur to even one of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Think of it, thousands of minds operating in absolute, lockstep
> > > > > uniformity, with nobody thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > The humor of the situation doesn't even occur to any of them.
> > > > > Not one has the ability to step back even one inch from the
> > > > > situation and look at it objectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is absolute proof of that liberalism is an all-embracing
> > > > > ideology, that liberalism is the only legitimate language in
> > > > > liberal society.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Mark Achord
> > > > > To: la
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:22.a.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha! I know...the column is worth its weight in humor. I
> > > > > knew it would be a winner when I found the word "diverse" in
> > > > > the second paragraph.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Mark Achord
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:17 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: the Great Schism?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ho hum, a journalist finding liberal Catholics to tell the
> > > > > Pope that Catholicism ought to be abandoned ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Mark Achord
> > > > > To: la
> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:10.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: the Great Schism?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/faces.church/index.html
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 25 11:43:04 2005
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:43:04 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
Message-ID: <20050425154304.GA1018@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050425143429.1EDE7CA0F6@ws7-4.us4.outblaze.com> <00cf01c549a6$5e497b80$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <00cf01c549a6$5e497b80$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1540 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 14820
Lines: 302
I should say that the preference for Latin is not simply mindless
adherence to tradition. It's an evident manifestation of the identity
and universality of the Church across borders and through time. The BCP
(and KJB) made Tudor English the liturgical language for the
English-speaking world but I don't think there should be national
liturgical languages in the Catholic Church. It's been a big problem
that the Anglican Church has been a national church. It's meant that
critical distance with regard to national trends and authorities has
been very difficult to maintain. It's worth a lot to avoid giving that
appearance.
My own vote for the Novus Ordo for now would be to improve the way it's
done -- improve the translations, have the priest once again face the
same direction everybody else faces, so he doesn't look like an MC, and
put more and more of it back in Latin. All that by the way would be very
much in line with what Vat II said should be done and could be carried
out without any formal changes in liturgical rules if bishops and
priests liked the idea and found occasions to implement it piece by
piece. If you don't have support in the clergy for this kind of stuff
you're not going to get anywhere anyway.
jk
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:51:56AM -0400, la wrote:
> Ok, I hear you. But I would argue that what I'm suggesting, i.e., someth=
ing like the AUL, is the answer the Catholic Church needs. That is somethi=
ng that would be acceptable to all Catholics, while many Catholics would si=
mply not want to attend services in Latin. There is no chance that the tra=
ditional mass in Latin would become the norm. The most the trads seek is t=
o get greater recognition and availability of the Latin mass. With my solu=
tion, parishes that wanted Latin traditional mass could of course have it, =
but the norm would be the AUL-like mass that I'm suggesting. Think of how =
this would raise the tone of Catholic Church. =20
>=20
> Basically the Anglo-Catholics have the liturgy down perfect, but they lac=
k a moral teaching. By contrast, the Catholics have a moral teaching (thou=
gh, as I've argued, it's too much focussed on "culture of life" type issues=
than on classic moral issues), but their main liturgy is, excuse me, junk.=
So, combine a liturgy like the Anglo-Catholics' which is both high and pu=
re AND accessible to everyone, with the moral teaching and doctrinal and ap=
ostolic authority of the Roman Church, and you're cooking with gas. =20
>=20
> I offer this proposal sadly, because, based on what you've said, the Cath=
olic trads will reject it. Yet I persist in maintaining that what I'm prop=
osing is the answer, if people could only see it. =20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Howard Sutherland=20
> To: la ; Eugene Girin ; James Kalb ; Unadorned ; Henri, Pa=
ul ; Joel LeFevre ; Anthony Damato=20
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:34.a.m.
> Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
>=20
>=20
> I think the answer to the question is that for traditional Catholics (c=
ertainly for me, although I may be atypical as I was not born Catholic) is =
that the traditional Mass is what it is: traditional and - an essential ele=
ment of that tradition - in Latin. To have a vernacular Mass that is a tra=
nslation of the traditional Mass would be an improvement over mediocre (and=
often simply inaccurate) translations of the Novus Ordo. It would not, ho=
wever, be a traditional Catholic Mass, which is - Latin. Again, assuming I=
am representative for a moment, the Latin language is an important element=
of what traditionalists value in the traditional Mass. Most, I suspect, w=
ould view a vernacular traditional Mass as little improvement over a Latin =
Novus Ordo Mass, and would think they had been fobbed off again. (I'm not =
saying that on the basis of any survey of Catholic traditionalists though.)
>=20
> Your alternative already exists within the Church, although with limite=
d availability. I am very familiar with the Anglican liturgy from the 1928=
Book of Common Prayer. It is my old liturgy. A number of Episcopalian pa=
rishes (and maybe other Anglican parishes elsewhere) have converted to Cath=
olicism more or less en masse in recent decades. In 1980, JP2 granted conv=
erted Episcopalian parishes the right to an Anglican Use Liturgy (see this:=
http://www.cin.org/anguse.html) that is very much like what you describe. =
I have been to a few in San Antonio and they are beautiful and moving Mass=
es, certainly an improvement over mistranslated vernacular Novus Ordos. Th=
e AUL is not, however, the traditional Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. =
While traditionalists are going to have to accept that - for the foreseeabl=
e future at least - the Novus Ordo, typically in the vernacular, will conti=
nue to be the most common form of Mass, we should not have to compromise ab=
out what the Catholic "traditionalist alternative" is. It should be the re=
al thing, Latin and all. That, of course, includes the celebrant facing th=
e altar and communicants receiving on the tongue while kneeling. HRS
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "la"=20
> To: "Howard Sutherland" , "Eugene Girin" , "James Kalb" , Unadorned , "=
Henri, Paul" , "Joel LeFevre" , "Anthony Damato"=20
> Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger=20
> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:34:25 -0400=20
>=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > I don't think we will ever see a vernacular version of the=20
> > > traditional Mass.=20
> >=20
> > Why not?=20
> >=20
> > > I don't think we will ever see a vernacular version of the=20
> > > traditional Mass. To traditionalists that would be a=20
> > > contradiction in terms and, in any event, the Novus Ordo is the=20
> > > Catholic template for vernacular liturgies.=20
> >=20
> > I don't understand. Are you saying the traditionalists, though=20
> > they (grudgingly) go along with a horrid English version of the=20
> > Novus Ordo when they have to, would not accept good English=20
> > version of the traditional Mass? Because they only want to the=20
> > traditional Mass to be Latin?=20
> >=20
> > You live in New York. If it's not totally forbidden to you, may I=20
> > suggest that you attend a Sunday service 11 a.m. at St. Thomas=20
> > Episcopal (or even the 5 pm. service in the side chapel on=20
> > Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays), to get a sense of the liturgy=20
> > based on the Book of Common Prayer. This is an English rendering=20
> > of the ancient Latin liturgy. Why couldn't the Catholics do=20
> > something like this? Why? The answer is all there! Just get rid=20
> > of the junk and go back to the original texts (with appropriate=20
> > modifications) in a worthy English version, and turn the priest=20
> > toward the altar so we don't see him munching, and have the=20
> > communicants kneel at the altar rail instead of walking up to the=20
> > priest, being handed the host, and walking away munching.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > ----- Original Message -----=20
> > From: Howard Sutherland=20
> > To: la ; Eugene Girin ; James Kalb ; Unadorned ;=20
> > Henri, Paul ; Joel LeFevre ; Anthony Damato=20
> > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 4:45.p.m.=20
> > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > If we are lucky, Pope Benedict will take real steps to make the=20
> > traditional Mass more readily available to those of us who believe=20
> > it is the normative Mass. Our late Pope said the right things about=
=20
> > greater availability, but did nothing to make recalcitrant Novus=20
> > Ordo bishops comply. My impression from afar is that the concrete=20
> > manifestations of tradition (language, music, vestments) mean more=20
> > to Joseph Ratzinger than they did to Karol Wojtyla. For what it is=20
> > worth, our new Pope's older brother Georg is (was?) the=20
> > kapellmeister of the Regensburger Domsp?tzen, who have tried hard=20
> > to keep classic Catholic hymnody alive.=20
> >=20
> > Probably the Novus Ordo is too well-entrenched ever to be=20
> > entirely displaced by the traditional Mass. The best=20
> > traditionalists can hope for, and it would be a great deal, would=20
> > be greater availability of the traditional Mass (including=20
> > all-traditional Mass parishes in full communion) within in a=20
> > majority-Novus Ordo Church, where, however, the Novus Ordo is=20
> > offered much more often in Latin according to the Rite than today=20
> > and with vernacular translations that are more faithful - and=20
> > elegant - than what we have now. Today reading the Latin Novus=20
> > Ordo alongside the typical English liturgy is to read two different=
=20
> > things. I don't think we will ever see a vernacular version of the=20
> > traditional Mass. To traditionalists that would be a contradiction=20
> > in terms and, in any event, the Novus Ordo is the Catholic template=
=20
> > for vernacular liturgies. Of course, greater respect for the=20
> > Eucharist (an end to lay servers, communion on the hoof and in the=20
> > hand, altar girls...) would also be most welcome. If recent=20
> > Vatican performances are an indication, and if Cardinal Ratzinger=20
> > was the arbiter of their style, we may be hopeful.=20
> >=20
> > No disrespect meant to Fr. Fessio, but am I the only person who=20
> > can't stand the current use of "reach out"? Talk about the therapy=20
> > mentality polluting language. It belongs in the same circle of=20
> > language Hell as "proactive." HRS=20
> > ----- Original Message -----=20
> > From: "la"=20
> > To: "Howard Sutherland" , "Eugene Girin" , "James Kalb" ,=20
> > Unadorned , "Henri, Paul" , "Joel LeFevre" , "Anthony Damato"=20
> > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger=20
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:40:46 -0400=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> > > Speaking of the Mass, get this, from Hugh Hewitt's site. Is it=20
> > > possible the new pope could actually bring back the old mass? If=20
> > > he did it in in the vernacular, and in a worthy English=20
> > > translation, we'd have ... the Anglo-Catholic mass. :-)=20
> > >=20
> > > Pope Benedict XVI is a scholar, and a teacher. Scholar/teachers=20
> > > have students, and they stay close with many of them. Father Joseph=
=20
> > > Fessio, Provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, studied=
=20
> > > under the new pope in the early '70s, and has stayed a friend and=
=20
> > > student for thirty years. He was my guest today. Here is a short=20
> > > and important --in fact crucial-- excerpt from that conversation.=
=20
> > > A complete transcript will be posted later at Radioblogger:=20
> > >=20
> > > "His deepest love is the Mass. And so he wrote a book called The=20
> > > Spirit of the Liturgy, and it is clear that he believes that what=
=20
> > > happened after Vatican II, that Council, was that the way the Mass=
=20
> > > was celebrated really represented a break from tradition. It was=20
> > > no longer in continuity. So, he has said publicly that the=20
> > > previous rite should never have been abolished because it was a=20
> > > rite that had nourished saints for centuries. At the same time, he=
=20
> > > was the one who had to negotiate with Lefebrve and others, and who=
=20
> > > had to tell the pope, 'We can't take anymore, they ahve broken the=
=20
> > > rules here, they have ordained bishops.' So he deeply wants to have=
=20
> > > the Mass celebrated as he says in his homily [today] with solemnity=
=20
> > > and rectitude. So I think he will reach out to those who have a=20
> > > love for the pre-[Vatican II] Mass."=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > ----- Original Message -----=20
> > > From: "Howard Sutherland"=20
> > > To: "la" ; "Eugene Girin"=20
> > > ; "James Kalb"=20
> > > ; "Unadorned"=20
> > > ; "Henri, Paul" ; "Joel=20
> > > LeFevre" ; "Anthony Damato"=20
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:38.p.m.=20
> > > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > I think your second paragraph provides a very good theory. I, for=
=20
> > > one, hope it is true. The new Pope has a great many things to deal=
=20
> > > with, but his actions toward those who want the traditional Mass=20
> > > (he has been conspicuously friendly in recent years) will be=20
> > > revealing. Fr. Joseph Fessio thinks he chose Benedict as a sign=20
> > > that he is serious about re-evangelizing Europe. I pray Fessio is=
=20
> > > right. HRS=20
> > > ----- Original Message -----=20
> > > From: "la"=20
> > > To: "Howard Sutherland" , "Eugene Girin"=20
> > > , "James Kalb"=20
> > > , Unadorned=20
> > > , "Henri, Paul" , "Joel=20
> > > LeFevre" , "Anthony Damato"=20
> > > Subject: The puzzle of Ratzinger=20
> > > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:39:17 -0400=20
> > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > If anyone has any theories, I'm all ears.=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > The puzzle of Ratzinger=20
> > > >=20
> > > > by la at View from the Right, "the right blog=20
> > for the right"=20
> > > >=20
> > > > If, as a Washington Times editorial informed us in September=20
> > > > 2003, Joseph Ratzinger was a "radical leftist" theologian at the=
=20
> > > > Second Vatican Council, and if, as the same editorial reports, he=
=20
> > > > says he has not moved to the right in the four decades since=20
> > > > then, then how did he come to give the magnificent, classically=
=20
> > > > Christian homily he delivered earlier this week, without a spot=
=20
> > > > of modernism, leftism, or humanism about it? (The word "humanism"=
=20
> > > > appeared once in the sermon, but in a traditional Christian=20
> > > > context and without any of its Wojtyla-esque implications.) This=
=20
> > > > is a mystery that cries out for explanation.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > The most hopeful answer would be that Ratzinger has most=20
> > > > certainly moved to the right since the catastrophe of Vatican II=
=20
> > > > (or, more precisely, that he has moved back to the truth of=20
> > > > Christianity), but that, in a Benedict XV spirit of avoiding=20
> > > > unnecessary conflict, he doesn't want to be too explicit about=20
> > > > that fact.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Posted by la at April 20, 2005 09:19 AM | Comment |=
=20
> > > >=20
> > > > (To read original article, click on the article's title above.)=
=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 25 12:28:20 2005
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:28:20 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
Message-ID: <20050425162820.GA1182@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050425143429.1EDE7CA0F6@ws7-4.us4.outblaze.com> <00cf01c549a6$5e497b80$cda2fea9@h6l3p> <20050425154304.GA1018@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <013701c549af$e6a67420$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <013701c549af$e6a67420$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1541 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 18392
Lines: 349
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:00:26PM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> You're making good points, but
>
> 1. I didn't say preference for Latin is simply mindless adherence to
> tradition. Who in this discussion suggested that?
Nobody. I didn't say or suggest otherwise.
> 2. The question of the Anglican Church has nothing to do with this
> topic. I'm not arguing for the Anglican Church per se, but for a good
> English liturgy in the Catholic Church.
>
> 3. Why should anyone believe that simply having the liturgy in the
> vernacular means subservience to secular national trends? A good part
> of the world speaks English and yet is hostile to the United States.
> You seem to be assuming that because the Anglican-Episcopal church (of
> which you used to be a member) is bad, therefore anything that resembles
> anything in the Anglican church, including an English liturgy, must be
> bad.
Language is important. Total vernacularization of the liturgy makes it
national simply by what it most obviously is, a text wholly in the
national language. If a liturgy is a good liturgy its language takes on
a sacred quality as a liturgical language. So the sacred and the
national start to look the same. I don't think America needs that.
I don't think it helps that English is also used in other countries
since the point is that there's nothing in the linguistic form of the
liturgical text that makes the point that something higher and different
from the national society is in play. And in any event America far
predominates within the English-speaking world, which I don't see as
hostile to the US.
> 4. I don't have an opinion on your idea that the only way the Church
> can maintain its universality and supremacy to all secular societies is
> through the Latin liturgy. However, if your idea is true, then I would
> question having a single universal Latin liturgy on that basis, because
> the excessive universality of the Catholic Church, making it hostile and
> threatening to the survival of existing nations, is part of the problem
> with the Catholic Church now, as you yourself have acknowledged.
It's important to have a hierarchy of societies. The Latin liturgy
corresponds exactly to Western civilization. It also corresponds much
more to the whole of the Western past than English ever could. I'd just
as soon America weren't understood altogether as a novus ordo seclorum.
I do think it's important also to have other liturgies that correspond
to other civilizational groupings within the universal Church. Such
liturgies actually exist and are in use (e.g., Greek and Slavonic).
jk
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005
> 11:43.a.m. Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
>
> > I should say that the preference for Latin is not simply mindless
> > adherence to tradition. It's an evident manifestation of the identity
> > and universality of the Church across borders and through time. The
> > BCP
> > (and KJB) made Tudor English the liturgical language for the
> > English-speaking world but I don't think there should be national
> > liturgical languages in the Catholic Church. It's been a big problem
> > that the Anglican Church has been a national church. It's meant that
> > critical distance with regard to national trends and authorities has
> > been very difficult to maintain. It's worth a lot to avoid giving that
> > appearance.
> >
> > My own vote for the Novus Ordo for now would be to improve the way
> > it's
> > done -- improve the translations, have the priest once again face the
> > same direction everybody else faces, so he doesn't look like an MC,
> > and
> > put more and more of it back in Latin. All that by the way would be
> > very
> > much in line with what Vat II said should be done and could be carried
> > out without any formal changes in liturgical rules if bishops and
> > priests liked the idea and found occasions to implement it piece by
> > piece. If you don't have support in the clergy for this kind of stuff
> > you're not going to get anywhere anyway.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:51:56AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > Ok, I hear you. But I would argue that what I'm suggesting, i.e.,
> > > something like the AUL, is the answer the Catholic Church needs.
> > > That is something that would be acceptable to all Catholics, while
> > > many Catholics would simply not want to attend services in Latin.
> > > There is no chance that the traditional mass in Latin would become
> > > the norm. The most the trads seek is to get greater recognition
> > > and availability of the Latin mass. With my solution, parishes
> > > that wanted Latin traditional mass could of course have it, but the
> > > norm would be the AUL-like mass that I'm suggesting. Think of how
> > > this would raise the tone of Catholic Church.
> > >
> > > Basically the Anglo-Catholics have the liturgy down perfect, but
> > > they lack a moral teaching. By contrast, the Catholics have a
> > > moral teaching (though, as I've argued, it's too much focussed on
> > > "culture of life" type issues than on classic moral issues), but
> > > their main liturgy is, excuse me, junk. So, combine a liturgy like
> > > the Anglo-Catholics' which is both high and pure AND accessible to
> > > everyone, with the moral teaching and doctrinal and apostolic
> > > authority of the Roman Church, and you're cooking with gas.
> > >
> > > I offer this proposal sadly, because, based on what you've said,
> > > the Catholic trads will reject it. Yet I persist in maintaining
> > > that what I'm proposing is the answer, if people could only see it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Howard Sutherland
> > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ; James Kalb ; Unadorned ;
> > > Henri, Paul ; Joel LeFevre ; Anthony Damato Sent: Monday, April
> > > 25, 2005 10:34.a.m. Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the answer to the question is that for traditional
> > > Catholics (certainly for me, although I may be atypical as I was
> > > not born Catholic) is that the traditional Mass is what it is:
> > > traditional and - an essential element of that tradition - in
> > > Latin. To have a vernacular Mass that is a translation of the
> > > traditional Mass would be an improvement over mediocre (and often
> > > simply inaccurate) translations of the Novus Ordo. It would not,
> > > however, be a traditional Catholic Mass, which is - Latin. Again,
> > > assuming I am representative for a moment, the Latin language is an
> > > important element of what traditionalists value in the traditional
> > > Mass. Most, I suspect, would view a vernacular traditional Mass as
> > > little improvement over a Latin Novus Ordo Mass, and would think
> > > they had been fobbed off again. (I'm not saying that on the basis
> > > of any survey of Catholic traditionalists though.)
> > >
> > > Your alternative already exists within the Church, although with
> > > limited availability. I am very familiar with the Anglican liturgy
> > > from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It is my old liturgy. A
> > > number of Episcopalian parishes (and maybe other Anglican parishes
> > > elsewhere) have converted to Catholicism more or less en masse in
> > > recent decades. In 1980, JP2 granted converted Episcopalian
> > > parishes the right to an Anglican Use Liturgy (see this:
> > > http://www.cin.org/anguse.html) that is very much like what you
> > > describe. I have been to a few in San Antonio and they are
> > > beautiful and moving Masses, certainly an improvement over
> > > mistranslated vernacular Novus Ordos. The AUL is not, however, the
> > > traditional Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. While
> > > traditionalists are going to have to accept that - for the
> > > foreseeable future at least - the Novus Ordo, typically in the
> > > vernacular, will continue to be the most common form of Mass, we
> > > should not have to compromise about what the Catholic
> > > "traditionalist alternative" is. It should be the real thing,
> > > Latin and all. That, of course, includes the celebrant facing the
> > > altar and communicants receiving on the tongue while kneeling. HRS
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "la"
> > > To: "Howard Sutherland" , "Eugene Girin" , "James Kalb" ,
> > > Unadorned , "Henri, Paul" , "Joel LeFevre" , "Anthony Damato"
> > > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005
> > > 23:34:25 -0400
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think we will ever see a vernacular version of the
> > > > > traditional Mass.
> > > >
> > > > Why not?
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think we will ever see a vernacular version of the
> > > > > traditional Mass. To traditionalists that would be a
> > > > > contradiction in terms and, in any event, the Novus Ordo is
> > > the > > Catholic template for vernacular liturgies.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand. Are you saying the traditionalists, though
> > > > they (grudgingly) go along with a horrid English version of the
> > > > Novus Ordo when they have to, would not accept good English
> > > > version of the traditional Mass? Because they only want to the
> > > > traditional Mass to be Latin?
> > > >
> > > > You live in New York. If it's not totally forbidden to you, may
> > > I > suggest that you attend a Sunday service 11 a.m. at St. Thomas
> > > > Episcopal (or even the 5 pm. service in the side chapel on
> > > > Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays), to get a sense of the liturgy
> > > > based on the Book of Common Prayer. This is an English rendering
> > > > of the ancient Latin liturgy. Why couldn't the Catholics do
> > > > something like this? Why? The answer is all there! Just get rid
> > > > of the junk and go back to the original texts (with appropriate
> > > > modifications) in a worthy English version, and turn the priest
> > > > toward the altar so we don't see him munching, and have the
> > > > communicants kneel at the altar rail instead of walking up to
> > > the > priest, being handed the host, and walking away munching.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Howard Sutherland
> > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ; James Kalb ; Unadorned ;
> > > > Henri, Paul ; Joel LeFevre ; Anthony Damato
> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 4:45.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we are lucky, Pope Benedict will take real steps to make the
> > > > traditional Mass more readily available to those of us who
> > > believe > it is the normative Mass. Our late Pope said the right
> > > things about > greater availability, but did nothing to make
> > > recalcitrant Novus > Ordo bishops comply. My impression from afar
> > > is that the concrete > manifestations of tradition (language,
> > > music, vestments) mean more > to Joseph Ratzinger than they did
> > > to Karol Wojtyla. For what it is > worth, our new Pope's older
> > > brother Georg is (was?) the > kapellmeister of the Regensburger
> > > Domsp?tzen, who have tried hard > to keep classic Catholic
> > > hymnody alive. >
> > > > Probably the Novus Ordo is too well-entrenched ever to be
> > > > entirely displaced by the traditional Mass. The best
> > > > traditionalists can hope for, and it would be a great deal,
> > > would > be greater availability of the traditional Mass (including
> > > > all-traditional Mass parishes in full communion) within in a
> > > > majority-Novus Ordo Church, where, however, the Novus Ordo is
> > > > offered much more often in Latin according to the Rite than
> > > today > and with vernacular translations that are more faithful -
> > > and > elegant - than what we have now. Today reading the Latin
> > > Novus > Ordo alongside the typical English liturgy is to read two
> > > different > things. I don't think we will ever see a vernacular
> > > version of the > traditional Mass. To traditionalists that would
> > > be a contradiction > in terms and, in any event, the Novus Ordo
> > > is the Catholic template > for vernacular liturgies. Of course,
> > > greater respect for the > Eucharist (an end to lay servers,
> > > communion on the hoof and in the > hand, altar girls...) would
> > > also be most welcome. If recent > Vatican performances are an
> > > indication, and if Cardinal Ratzinger > was the arbiter of their
> > > style, we may be hopeful. >
> > > > No disrespect meant to Fr. Fessio, but am I the only person who
> > > > can't stand the current use of "reach out"? Talk about the
> > > therapy > mentality polluting language. It belongs in the same
> > > circle of > language Hell as "proactive." HRS
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "la"
> > > > To: "Howard Sutherland" , "Eugene Girin" , "James Kalb" ,
> > > > Unadorned , "Henri, Paul" , "Joel LeFevre" , "Anthony Damato"
> > > > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
> > > > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:40:46 -0400
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of the Mass, get this, from Hugh Hewitt's site. Is it
> > > > > possible the new pope could actually bring back the old mass?
> > > If > > he did it in in the vernacular, and in a worthy English
> > > > > translation, we'd have ... the Anglo-Catholic mass. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pope Benedict XVI is a scholar, and a teacher.
> > > Scholar/teachers > > have students, and they stay close with many
> > > of them. Father Joseph > > Fessio, Provost of Ave Maria
> > > University in Naples, Florida, studied > > under the new pope in
> > > the early '70s, and has stayed a friend and > > student for
> > > thirty years. He was my guest today. Here is a short > > and
> > > important --in fact crucial-- excerpt from that conversation. > >
> > > A complete transcript will be posted later at Radioblogger: > >
> > > > > "His deepest love is the Mass. And so he wrote a book called
> > > The > > Spirit of the Liturgy, and it is clear that he believes
> > > that what > > happened after Vatican II, that Council, was that
> > > the way the Mass > > was celebrated really represented a break
> > > from tradition. It was > > no longer in continuity. So, he has
> > > said publicly that the > > previous rite should never have been
> > > abolished because it was a > > rite that had nourished saints for
> > > centuries. At the same time, he > > was the one who had to
> > > negotiate with Lefebrve and others, and who > > had to tell the
> > > pope, 'We can't take anymore, they ahve broken the > > rules
> > > here, they have ordained bishops.' So he deeply wants to have > >
> > > the Mass celebrated as he says in his homily [today] with
> > > solemnity > > and rectitude. So I think he will reach out to
> > > those who have a > > love for the pre-[Vatican II] Mass." > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Howard Sutherland"
> > > > > To: "la" ; "Eugene Girin"
> > > > > ; "James Kalb"
> > > > > ; "Unadorned"
> > > > > ; "Henri, Paul" ; "Joel
> > > > > LeFevre" ; "Anthony Damato"
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:38.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: The puzzle of Ratzinger
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think your second paragraph provides a very good theory. I,
> > > for > > one, hope it is true. The new Pope has a great many
> > > things to deal > > with, but his actions toward those who want
> > > the traditional Mass > > (he has been conspicuously friendly in
> > > recent years) will be > > revealing. Fr. Joseph Fessio thinks he
> > > chose Benedict as a sign > > that he is serious about
> > > re-evangelizing Europe. I pray Fessio is > > right. HRS
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "la"
> > > > > To: "Howard Sutherland" , "Eugene Girin"
> > > > > , "James Kalb"
> > > > > , Unadorned
> > > > > , "Henri, Paul" , "Joel
> > > > > LeFevre" , "Anthony Damato"
> > > > > Subject: The puzzle of Ratzinger
> > > > > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:39:17 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone has any theories, I'm all ears.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The puzzle of Ratzinger
> > > > > >
> > > > > > by la at View from the Right, "the right blog
> > > > for the right"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If, as a Washington Times editorial informed us in September
> > > > > > 2003, Joseph Ratzinger was a "radical leftist" theologian
> > > at the > > > Second Vatican Council, and if, as the same
> > > editorial reports, he > > > says he has not moved to the right in
> > > the four decades since > > > then, then how did he come to give
> > > the magnificent, classically > > > Christian homily he delivered
> > > earlier this week, without a spot > > > of modernism, leftism, or
> > > humanism about it? (The word "humanism" > > > appeared once in
> > > the sermon, but in a traditional Christian > > > context and
> > > without any of its Wojtyla-esque implications.) This > > > is a
> > > mystery that cries out for explanation. > > >
> > > > > > The most hopeful answer would be that Ratzinger has most
> > > > > > certainly moved to the right since the catastrophe of
> > > Vatican II > > > (or, more precisely, that he has moved back to
> > > the truth of > > > Christianity), but that, in a Benedict XV
> > > spirit of avoiding > > > unnecessary conflict, he doesn't want to
> > > be too explicit about > > > that fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Posted by la at April 20, 2005 09:19 AM |
> > > Comment | > > >
> > > > > > (To read original article, click on the article's title
> > > above.) > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 25 21:22:44 2005
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:22:44 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and traditionalist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050426012244.GC2357@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <03e401c549ef$3219f320$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <03e401c549ef$3219f320$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1548 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 5268
Lines: 102
Everything depends on spin. To give that a loftier turn, everything
depends on the overall system of meaning.
My general point is that the federal government has final authority over
survival issues (like war) and final decision-making power in case of
conflicts (e.g. over federal/state jurisdiction). It is therefore the
ultimate focus of social loyalty. Unfortunately, it was also created for
purely secular purposes, basically commercial prosperity and physical
safety. It doesn't point at all to anything higher. Religion is
explicitly made irrelevant to participation.
It seems to follow from all that that our ultimate worldly loyalties and
most serious social connections have nothing to do with anything higher
than physical security and making money. I don't think the same
conclusion would follow though if the federal government had been set up
ad maiorem gloram Dei for the salute populi in the name of the
Sanctissimam Trinitatem even if the actual assigned functions for one
reason or another happened to be pretty much the same on the whole (I
suppose they'd have to be different enough to make the broader
orientation recognizable but I don't think that would take much as a
practical matter).
The basic point is that the limitation of function has to be a practical
decision rather than a matter of ultimate principle. In order for it to
be the former the federal government has to be seen as subordinate to
some higher principle so its own principles could be seen as only
relative and pragmatic.
jk
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:33:19PM -0400, la wrote:
>=20
> Jim,
>=20
> You have said that whatever values or ideas are most authoritative in a s=
ociety, will tend over time to become the sole authoritative values and ide=
as for the whole society. Thus the U.S. Constitution mandates that there b=
e no establishment of religion at the federal level, while leaving the stat=
es to have establishment of religion if they want. Over time, the values a=
rticulated at the highest level spread out and become the values for the en=
tire system at all levels, so that none of the states have an establishment=
of religion. Similarly, the idea that Congress could not prohibit the peo=
ple assembling for the redress of grievances came to mean that states and c=
ities could not prohibit people from loitering. The idea that Congress cou=
ld not infringe freedom of speech came to mean that states and localities c=
ould not prevent public school children from dressing like walking garbage =
sacks. (Let's leave aside the specific constitutioanl perversions, such as=
the Incorporation Doctrine and Substantive Due Process, that made these th=
ings possible, and just consider the general movement I've described.)
>=20
> Now, if one is a traditional conservative, one believes that there is a g=
ood and that, within limits, it is the job of the state to promote the good=
. But if one is a traditional American constitutionalist, one believes tha=
t it is primarily the states and localities that should do this promoting, =
not the general government. But, according to the Kalb argument described =
above, if the federal government is prohibited from doing this promoting, e=
ventually the states will be prohibited from doing it as well.=20
>=20
> So the question is: is a traditionalism which combines moral conservatis=
m with federal constitutionalism possible? Consider the problem. In its i=
deal form such a traditionalism would leave moral matters up to the states.=
But if the federal government is forbidden from interfering in those area=
s, won't the same prohibition, following the Kalb principle, eventually spr=
ead out to the states as well? Which leads to the result that if one wants=
the government to be protecting morality, it must be done at the federal l=
evel. But if it's done at the federal level, that will spread out and affe=
ct the states as well, bringing an end to constitutionalism. Either way, w=
e seem to end up with a unitary state. We either have a unitary state that=
is morally conservative, or a unitary state that is morally libertarian. =
The first option preserves one of the two traditionalist ideals. The secon=
d option preserves neither. =20
>=20
> I guess this is why you prefer a de-centralized, medieval-type order over=
a national constitution, because even if the national constitution articul=
ates federative principles and separation of power, because it is a nationa=
l constitution, the principles it articulates must eventually become operat=
ive for every level in the system and make the society unitary rather than =
federative. =20
>=20
> Which returns us once again to my question: can moral conservatism work =
in tandem with constitutionalism? Or must we choose one or the other?
>=20
> Larry
>=20
> P.S. The above thoughts occurred to me while reading Andrew Sullivan's b=
ig article on conservatism at TNR. While he raises some interesting themes=
in the opening part of the article, I feel that the article as a whole con=
sists of his usual special pleading for homosexual rights, which he disguis=
es as a high-minded appeal for a principled conservatism.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 26 07:00:01 2005
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:00:01 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and traditionalist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050426110001.GA5190@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <03e401c549ef$3219f320$cda2fea9@h6l3p> <20050426012244.GC2357@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <046901c54a01$75680060$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <046901c54a01$75680060$cda2fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1549 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1275
Lines: 30
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:44:14PM -0400, la wrote:
>
> However, what about the other problem I discussed--that, given the
> tendency of a society to conform to its highest principle, a federal
> constitutional structure with its diversities is not sustainable over
> the long run?
>
That's why it helps to have the highest principle be something
transcendent that is embodied in a concrete universal institution that
nonetheless lacks direct political power. Then both in theory and in
organizational reality no level of political authority will represent
ultimate standards in a privileged way. You escape this-worldly
totalitarianism by making the ultimate principle of unity a transcendent
one that can never be more than very partially realized anyway and
putting it in an other-worldly institution.
That line of thought has some historical backing. The division of the
Empire under Diocletian was followed shortly by the effective
establishment of Christianity under Constantine. Conversely, the
Reformation led to the principle of national sovereignty, and the 20th
c. decline and then collapse of Christianity in Europe led to various
attempts at a totalitrarian unity, including the current EU variety.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 26 08:30:55 2005
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:30:55 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and traditionalist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050426123055.GA6954@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <003401c54a55$5b11dca0$7e79fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <003401c54a55$5b11dca0$7e79fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1551 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4068
Lines: 87
Interesting question. I'm inclined to think that if you don't have
recognition at the federal level of a specific church, which would then
also have to apply at lower levels, federal authority is not
institutionally relativized to something higher and there's more danger
of a slide into absolutism. Maybe you could fix the institutional
problem with a clear right of secession. Then the ultimate this-worldly
loyalty would be to the states, each of which could recognize some
concrete representative of higher authority.
jk
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 07:44:48AM -0400, la wrote:
> Also, are you suggesting that both the ever-expanding secularism AND the
> anti-federal amalgamation could have been avoided if the United States
> government have been dedicated, e.g., to the greater glory of God,
> without there being a specific established church at the national level?
> That under those circumstances the states would have remained free to
> have their own established churches, as well as their own distinct local
> laws controlling public morality and related matters? In other words,
> that such a system could have retained both its moral/religious
> principle, AND its federal principle?
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "la"
> To: "Jim Kalb"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005
> 7:10.a.m. Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism
> and traditionalist conservatism
>
> > Very interesting. I would just add to what you said,
> >
> > "... the Reformation led to the principle of national sovereignty [and
> > to the principle of the divine right, the absolute power, of kings]."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message ----
> > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > To: "la"
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:00.a.m.
> > Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and
> > traditionalist conservatism
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:44:14PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > >
> > > > However, what about the other problem I discussed--that, given the
> > > > tendency of a society to conform to its highest principle, a
> > > > federal constitutional structure with its diversities is not
> > > > sustainable over the long run?
> > > >
> > > That's why it helps to have the highest principle be something
> > > transcendent that is embodied in a concrete universal institution
> > > that nonetheless lacks direct political power. Then both in theory
> > > and in organizational reality no level of political authority will
> > > represent ultimate standards in a privileged way. You escape
> > > this-worldly totalitarianism by making the ultimate principle of
> > > unity a transcendent one that can never be more than very partially
> > > realized anyway and putting it in an other-worldly institution.
> > >
> > > That line of thought has some historical backing. The division of
> > > the Empire under Diocletian was followed shortly by the effective
> > > establishment of Christianity under Constantine. Conversely, the
> > > Reformation led to the principle of national sovereignty, and the
> > > 20th c. decline and then collapse of Christianity in Europe led to
> > > various attempts at a totalitrarian unity, including the current EU
> > > variety.
> > >
> > > jk
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 26 10:47:02 2005
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:47:02 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Howard Sutherland
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and traditionalist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050426144702.GA8367@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050426134456.AA66486B0F@ws7-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050426134456.AA66486B0F@ws7-1.us4.outblaze.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1552 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 830
Lines: 19
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:44:56AM -0500, Howard Sutherland wrote:
>
> People tend to see things hierarchically and to associate size with
> importance and even legitimacy. Also, most of us are followers.
> Looking at society that way, the federal government appears to be the
> highest and most important thing in society. Its priorities appear to
> be society's highest priorities.
I don't think it's just a matter of being impressed by large objects.
The feds are in charge of the ultimate political issues: war, peace and
national survival. They have the right to demand that we lay down our
lives that they may prevail. Also, if there's a dispute as to relative
power or jurisdiction the feds have the last word. So they really are,
in this-worldly terms, the highest authority.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 26 11:38:19 2005
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:38:19 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: "Clark L. Coleman"
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and traditionalist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050426153819.GB8367@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050426144702.GA8367@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <200504261457.j3QEvLCr029929@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200504261457.j3QEvLCr029929@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1553 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1918
Lines: 42
Good question about Switzerland, but it's hard for me to say much
because I don't know much about the place. There are some obvious
differences that could help tip the balance. They have four languages,
they live in a lot of different valleys, they're not a "nation of
immigrants," the cantons all have histories that go back before they
joined the confederation, and they're a small country surrounded by a
much bigger and more powerful neighbors, so the tendency to think of
Switzerland as a big abstraction that serves as the basis of a moral
cosmos rather than a particular local and practical arrangement people
are attached to because that's the way it's been and it works is
probably a lot weaker.
jk
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:57:21AM -0400, Clark L. Coleman wrote:
> Perhaps a good reality check on the discussion, to make sure that our
> theorizing agrees with concrete examples in the world, would be to
> examine the Swiss government. It has been mentioned as a
> decentralized confederation previously, and it has stood in contrast
> to the centralization of government over time in the USA.
>
> Yet, I suppose that the national government in Switzerland does have
> responsibility for national defense and some other "ultimate" things.
> These grand responsibilities were claimed to lead inexorably to
> everyone viewing the national government as supreme in the USA; so why
> not in Switzerland?
>
> Also, Switzerland was influenced historically by the Protestant
> Reformation (the bogeyman of many of these discussions) and by the
> movement away from medieval arrangements and towards national
> sovereignty. So, why does it not suffer from such centralization of
> government as we do?
>
> I think that discovering why various sweeping generalizations in this
> discussion do, or do not, apply to Switzerland would be informative.
>
> Clark Coleman
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 26 13:01:18 2005
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:01:18 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: "Joel T. LeFevre"
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and traditionalist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050426170118.GA8951@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050426134456.AA66486B0F@ws7-1.us4.outblaze.com> <20050426144702.GA8367@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <00dc01c54a71$83e96c80$7e79fea9@h6l3p> <20050426154401.GC8367@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <010801c54a79$24832580$7e79fea9@h6l3p> <20050426161646.GA8725@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <20050426164240.GF8560@jtl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050426164240.GF8560@jtl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1558 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4130
Lines: 78
Agreed that if interposition applies the feds don't have the last word.
Ditto if there's a right of secession. Interposition seems rather at
odds with the constitutional provisions I quoted that said federal law
is supreme and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases to which
the federal government is a party. Secession makes more sense to me as a
manifestation of a sort of preconstitutional doctrine, the ultimate
sovereignty of the people of the states acting in convention, that one
might see as necessary to the validity of the constitution itself.
Mr. LeFevre's comment that reserved powers are a farce if there's no
interposition is indeed the issue. What's needed to avoid absolutism and
maintain limited and distributed powers? I suggested one possibility
(Catholic Christendom) that makes all levels of government non-absolute
and therefore limited both theoretically and institutionally. Clark
Coleman mentioned the Swiss situation, where some combination of small
size, stability of populations, great linguistic, historical and
topographical diversity, and the immediate presence of large threatening
foreign states allowed largely self-governing localities nonetheless to
combine in an enduring confederation for mutual defense. So I guess one
issue as to interposition is whether it would work in a very extensive
country with dozens of states with often diverse interests.
jk
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:42:40PM -0400, Joel T. LeFevre wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:16:46PM -0400, Jim Kalb wrote:
> > I said "if there's a dispute as to relative power or jurisdiction the
> > feds have the last word." That means that if the feds say "we have power
> > to do X and jurisdiction over Y" and a state says "no you don't" the
> > feds decide the dispute as to the distribution of power or jurisdiction.
> > What is an example to the contrary?
>
> The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?
> The Embargo Acts?
>
> Entire books have been written given numerous examples that Mr. Kalb
> asks for. Sometimes the States have prevailed, other times not. "The
> Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia" by James J. Kilpatrick
> is probably the most comprehensive history.
>
> Mr. Kalb is noting how things have become. No one can deny today that
> the Federal government possesses and exercises nearly dictatorial
> powers. But the Constitution is silent on the question of who is to
> referee disputes between the political departments (i.e. Federal and
> States). It did not give an exclusive right to judge the extent of the
> powers delegated to the agency to whom those powers were delegated. Each
> department must protect its own; this is the concept of divided powers.
>
> In order for this to work in practice, both departments must have the
> power to judge infractions of the Constitution. Otherwise, the whole
> notion of reserved powers becomes a farce.
>
> -Joel LeFevre
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:00:58PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are the
> > > supreme Law of the Land. But this doesn't mean that in any difference
> > > or dispute between the federal government and a state government the
> > > federal government wins. There are all kinds of disputed areas, which
> > > are worked out through a political process, in which the state makes its
> > > claims against the federal government. At the same time it is true that
> > > the overall structure in which these disputes are worked out is
> > > determined by the federal Constitution.
> > >
> > > The passages from the Constitution quoted by Mr. Kalb might suggest to
> > > an uninstructed reader that we are living under the Virginia Plan as
> > > proposed by Madison, and rejected by the federal convention, in which
> > > the national government has direct power over all state laws, to approve
> > > them or overrule them. Since the Virginia Plan was rejected, clearly
> > > the "Supreme Law of the Land" clause does not signify the overweening
> > > federal power that it might seem to mean.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 27 06:46:54 2005
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:46:54 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: "Cella, Paul"
Subject: Re: the trade off between federal constitutionalism and tradition alist conservatism
Message-ID: <20050427104654.GB12870@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1562 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2472
Lines: 52
It seems to me the best overall response to "godless constitution" and
similar claims is to point out the obvious, that the Founding Documents
are not really founding documents. They represent particular events
within a society that had already existed for a long time and is part of
a much more extensive society, the civilization of the West as a whole.
So you can't read them like Holy Writ that contains all you need to know
about politics and the basis of social order.
jk
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:01:12PM -0400, Cella, Paul wrote:
> Actually the Constitution does include two oblique but unmistakeable Christian references.
>
> Article I, Section 7: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law." (Now why would SUNDAY be excepted?)
>
> Article VII: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven . . ."
>
> Not much, admittedly, but worth remembering when the Liberals lecture us about the "godless constitution."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Sutherland [mailto:hsutherland@lycos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:43 AM
> To: Joel T. LeFevre
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:04.a.m.
> > > > > > > > Subject: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, David Frum doesn't like his tone, you don't
> > like
> > > his
> > > > > > > > tone and even I don't much like his tone -- I
> > found
> > > "One
> > > > > > > > Market Under God" almost unreadable -- but I don't
> > > see
> > > > > > > > how he's wrong on the specifics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Republicans do spend more time campaigning on
> > > culture
> > > > > > > > war and character issues than they do on
> > economics.
> > > > > > > > That's not a weird theory, that's an observable
> > > fact.
> > > > > > > > Those dozen or
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > swing-state ballot initiatives that jump-started
> > the
> > > > > > > > Republican get-out-the-vote efforts -- they
> > weren't
> > > > > > > > about tax policy. They were about gay marriage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another fact is that Republicans win elections
> > doing
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > When Democrats take the offense on economics (like
> > > 1992)
> > > > > > > > they win. When they take the defense on the
> > culture
> > > war
> > > > > > > > they lose.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He's also right that most voters aren't policy
> > wonks
> > > > > > > > anyway. A candidate's image as "one of us" or at
> > > least
> > > > > > > > "a guy who gets it" is worth a lot. Again, Clinton
> > > was
> > > > > > > > the last Democrat to even try to pull that off.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not that Frum has the Dems best interest at heart,
> > > but
> > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > right that any serious attempt to return to power
> > > has to
> > > > > > > > start with an honest look at who votes for the
> > other
> > > > > > > > party and why. Making up stories about why we
> > didn't
> > > > > > > > *really* lose is the single most
> > counter-productive
> > > > > > > > thing we can
> > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > mask
> > > > > > > > their contempt for the people whose votes they
> > need
> > > > > > > > they'll keep on losing. I still remember a couple
> > of
> > > > > > > > aging Clintonistas doing election night commentary
> > > on
> > > > > > > > CNN and saying the
> > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > "flyover country" and "the cow counties" on the
> > air.
> > > You
> > > > > > > > talk like that in public, you're dead no matter
> > how
> > > good
> > > > > > > > your economics are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thomas Frank has made a name for himself with
> > > > > > > > his balleyhooed yet phony and ridiculous
> > > > > > > > critique of conservatism. His selling point is
> > > > > > > > that he, unlike most liberals, understands
> > > > > > > > middle American conservatives' real interests
> > > > > > > > and values (which,
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > says, the conservatives themselves don't
> > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > > > because of the false consciousness imposed on
> > > > > > > > them by conservative mastermind Karl Rove); yet
> > > > > > > > every time Frank discusses the conservatives'
> > > > > > > > views, he gives the lie to his claim of
> > > > > > > > empathy, by cruelly and ignorantly dismissing
> > > > > > > > them, just like a liberal. Frank has another
> > > > > > > > article out pushing the same tired thesis, and
> > > > > > > > David Frum (an occasionally useful writer)
> > > > > > > > takes it apart, mainly by quoting long excerpts
> > from
> > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Posted by la at 08:27 PM
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 5 13:08:05 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:08:05 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Ken
Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland conservatives
Message-ID: <20050505170805.GA26062@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <1115241883.2813.2721.camel@crashbox> <20050505143851.55309.qmail@web51506.mail.yahoo.com> <20050505150004.GB25810@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <1115309643.10008.28.camel@crashbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1115309643.10008.28.camel@crashbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1580 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 22210
Lines: 571
"The claim made in the introduction to The Right Nation is that
the single most statistically-significant factor in how a white man
votes isn't age or income or education -- it's how often he goes to
church."
Why isn't that simply a reflection of personal conviction, which is
supposed to be a good thing? There is no significant religious
discipline in America, and very little quasi-ethnic religious
solidarity. Everything's voluntary. It seems to me the secular left has
more backing from organized groups with an ideological ax to grind than
the religious right does. Why else would right-wingers have to rely on
informal participatory vehicles like talk radio and the internet if the
left/liberals didn't control official opinion-forming institutions?
It's not as if what schools and the national press say is simply a
reflection of the average outlook of the average American or the average
net outcome of the particular views of particular people. America is
professionalized, and such institutions feel something of a call to
remake the world, which means their attitudes on social issues are
organized, inculcated and made official in various ways.
As far as social solidarities and aversions go, there's public attitude
data suggesting that a quarter of the white population hates and fears
fundies as much as the most antisemitic 1% hates and fears Jews:
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2002fall/article1.html
Regardless of the reliability of social science surveys, that
corresponds pretty well with my impressions at least.
jk
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:14:04PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> There's a difference between "personal convictions in politics" which is
> what you described, which is how it ought to work and "organized
> religion in politics" where there's enough overlap between the party
> machine and the religious organization that God's personal
> representatives can tell the faithful how God wants them to vote.
>
> In Quebec in the 1930s, every Catholic priest used to give the same
> sermon the Sunday before elections: "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est
> rouge" (Heaven is blue, hell is red, referring to the colors of the
> Union Nationale and Liberal Party respectively.)
>
> At the extreme, you have the Lebanese political system. Each religion
> has its own party. Nobody gets to do the kind of reflection you
> described because everybody's a captive vote. "I'm Shia, Hezbollah is
> the Shia party, so I have to vote for Hezbollah." It's not an election
> anymore, it's a census.
>
> American politics isn't yet as hard-wired as that, but it's getting
> there. The claim made in the introduction to The Right Nation is that
> the single most statistically-significant factor in how a white man
> votes isn't age or income or education -- it's how often he goes to
> church.
>
> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 11:00, Jim Kalb wrote:
> > I have a related question. So far as I can tell, "religion in politics"
> > means that people vote and so on based on what they think the world is
> > actually like, what the point of life is, what makes life good or bad,
> > how we know things, what things are really important or unimportant etc.
> > What's the purified alternative to that?
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:38:50AM -0700, i wrote:
> > > Who do you actually like?
> > >
> > > i
> > >
> > > Ken wrote:
> > > I've known the first part for a while. The leftists that irritate me the
> > > most are the ones who borrow the most from Christianity. The class-war
> > > kids with their adolescent apocalyse-millenium fantasies, the Leninists
> > > who think all we have to do is believe exactly the right things and
> > > believe them really hard and salvation will follow, even the Quaker
> > > Consensus anarchists -- they'll all be fed to the lions when I become
> > > Emperor.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 17:03, i wrote:
> > > > Yeah, and one day you lefties will realize that leftism is secularized
> > > > Christianity and that paganism, being the worship of nature, implies a
> > > > brutally hierarchical world like the jungle or ancient Rome. Yer
> > > > sawin' off the branch...
> > > >
> > > > i
> > > >
> > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > Since neither of those are municipal jurisdiction, we're OK.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. It's actually a pretty liberal religion on everything
> > > > that doesn't
> > > > > happen in bed, i.e. sex and death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > "Illegitimate" is a strong word. Putting those initiatives
> > > > on
> > > > > the ballot
> > > > > was in no way illegitimate. It was completely within the
> > > > > letter and
> > > > > spirit of the rules. To say different is to indulge in that
> > > > > "we didn't
> > > > > *really* lose" nonsense. If I think anything was
> > > > illegitimate,
> > > > > it was
> > > > > the apocalyptic tone of the campaign that accompanied them.
> > > > > But on this
> > > > > we disagree.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question isn't "How do we get the Republicans to stop
> > > > > working
> > > > > culture war issues?" We can't do that anyway. The question
> > > > is
> > > > > "What do
> > > > > we have to do different so that the wedge issues (or the
> > > > > window-dressing
> > > > > issues, if you prefer) become less of a liability?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Individual people, acting alone and spontaneously, don't
> > > > > collect the
> > > > > signatures for ballot initiatives. Party machines and their
> > > > > auxiliaries
> > > > > do that. So I understand the event less as a spontaneous
> > > > > grassroots
> > > > > phenomenon and more as a calculated device to draw
> > > > additional
> > > > > conservative voters to the polls in key swing states. It
> > > > would
> > > > > not have
> > > > > worked if it hadn't tapped into convictions that already
> > > > > existed, but
> > > > > that doesn't mean I take the decision to hold them at face
> > > > > value and
> > > > > stop there.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a more general way, most leftists don't really understand
> > > > > religious
> > > > > motivations. I sure don't. The only people we have at hand
> > > > to
> > > > > explain it
> > > > > to us are Muslims and not everything they say translates to
> > > > > the
> > > > > Christian experience. At bottom, we often figure that claims
> > > > > of
> > > > > religious motivation are a smokescreen for the same
> > > > > materialist
> > > > > motivations that we have.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've started doing advance work on a suburban municipal
> > > > > campaign that'll
> > > > > run this November. It's a bit of a culture shock for me. The
> > > > > candidate
> > > > > is an NDP member, but also a religious Catholic. His crew is
> > > > > all people
> > > > > from his church. The first set of pre-campaign speaking gigs
> > > > > are all the
> > > > > other local churches his priest booked him into, from which
> > > > > we're going
> > > > > to try and sign up volunteers. I have a feeling I'll be
> > > > > sitting at the
> > > > > back of the room and keeping very quiet for a while. I have
> > > > no
> > > > > idea how
> > > > > to talk to these people.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, what you call "the Republican Party and its
> > > > > religious arm"
> > > > > > is, in fact, people, human people in states throughout
> > > > this
> > > > > country who
> > > > > > put referenda on state ballots to ban same-sex marriage.
> > > > > Frank, and
> > > > > > you, seem to think that that is somehow a questionable or
> > > > > illegitimate
> > > > > > activity. But apart from your disagreeing with the measure
> > > > > > substantively, what is illegitimate about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me rephrase it to make it even more subjective: "I
> > > > > don't care
> > > > > > > about La Question Nationale, I don't think anybody else
> > > > > should care
> > > > > > > about it and the explanations I've heard for why they do
> > > > > care don't
> > > > > > > convince me."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The principled opposition to gay marriage was there
> > > > > before. Obviously,
> > > > > > > Karl Rove didn't invent it out of thin air. I think
> > > > that's
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > of a straw man argument. Legislating it from the bench
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Massachusetts and elsewhere compounded the opposition --
> > > > > Frank
> > > > > > > doesn't want to admit to that one. I do think that,
> > > > > because of the
> > > > > > > very small numbers involved, it was irrational to make
> > > > (or
> > > > > believe)
> > > > > > > some of the apocalyptic claims that came out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would voters care about it to the same degree if the
> > > > > Republican Party
> > > > > > > and its religious arm had not done a full-court press in
> > > > > an election
> > > > > > > year? You say they would. Frank says they wouldn't. I'm
> > > > > inclined to
> > > > > > > agree with Frank. More to the point, could the Dems hit
> > > > an
> > > > > economic
> > > > > > > issue, say ending the guaranteed benefits of Social
> > > > > Security, just as
> > > > > > > hard and convince people to care more about that? We'll
> > > > > never know
> > > > > > > until they try.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:51, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having said that the concept a "real issue" is
> > > > > meaningless in the
> > > > > > > > political sphere, since all that matters is what
> > > > people
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > care about, how can you say: "I personally think La
> > > > > Question
> > > > > > > > Nationale is a phony issue." If there is no "real"
> > > > > issue, there
> > > > > > > > can be no phony issue either. There's only what people
> > > > > happen to
> > > > > > > > care about. So, even though at the electoral level,
> > > > "the
> > > > > real" is
> > > > > > > > not the point, please don't fall into the error of
> > > > > thinking that
> > > > > > > > the question of what is real doesn't matter at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever solicited
> > > > > votes from a
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't respect?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course not. As I said in another e-mail, the issue
> > > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > whether Republicans exploit people's feelings and
> > > > > principles, since
> > > > > > > > of course they do; the issue is whether people
> > > > genuinely
> > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > feelings and principles and have reasons for having
> > > > > them. Frank's
> > > > > > > > position is that they would not have those feelings
> > > > and
> > > > > principles,
> > > > > > > > absent Rove's manipulations. Frank's underlying belief
> > > > > is that
> > > > > > > > anyone who thinks that homosexual marriage is a
> > > > problem
> > > > > for society
> > > > > > > > is simply irrational. Please get that that's my basic
> > > > > point.
> > > > > > > > Otherwise you keep talking past me and I'm talking
> > > > past
> > > > > you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What I said was
> > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > describe
> > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to go,
> > > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't stop
> > > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can sack
> > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have no problem with this restatement of your
> > > > > position.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Look, anybody who already knows what "the real
> > > > issues"
> > > > > are belongs
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > lobbying/protest politics, not electoral. Electoral
> > > > > politicians
> > > > > > > > > have to be agnostic about that. The real issues are
> > > > > whatever the
> > > > > > > > > voters say they are. That's just a fact. People care
> > > > > about these
> > > > > > > > > things and they vote accordingly. How they came to
> > > > > care about
> > > > > > > > > them is
> > > > > > > > secondary.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Remember what I wrote the day after the election?
> > > > > "There's no such
> > > > > > > > job
> > > > > > > > > as President of New York and San Francisco, so the
> > > > > Dems need to
> > > > > > > > > quit running for it. And the first step is to ditch
> > > > > the gays."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A while ago I was picking the brain of an ex-Liberal
> > > > > Party
> > > > > > > > > campaign manager. He said, "If you're going to play
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > democratic game, you can never say the voter is
> > > > wrong.
> > > > > You can
> > > > > > > > > say he didn't get our message or didn't understand
> > > > it
> > > > > or didn't
> > > > > > > > > like it. But you can never say he's wrong."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here in Quebec, I personally think La Question
> > > > > Nationale is a
> > > > > > > > > phony issue. But if I want to get votes for the NDP,
> > > > I
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > treat it
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > it was real because enough voters think it's real.
> > > > > Same rules
> > > > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Kansas.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever solicited
> > > > > votes from a
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't respect?
> > > > > Everybody does
> > > > > > > > > that. Everybody has to. But you will never catch a
> > > > > Republican
> > > > > > > > > spindoctor
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > national TV using phrases like "Sodom-on-the-Hudson"
> > > > > or "The
> > > > > > > > People's
> > > > > > > > > Republic of Vermont".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't say Frank needed to conceal his contempt. I
> > > > > didn't find
> > > > > > > > > his account of the Christmas campaign all that
> > > > > contemptuous of the
> > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > audience, as opposed to the media figures who ran
> > > > it.
> > > > > What I said
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > describe
> > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to go,
> > > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't stop
> > > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can sack
> > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, the Dems also need to open up some seats at the
> > > > > head table
> > > > > > > > > for people who genuinely don't have that contempt
> > > > for
> > > > > anyone not
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > York, Massachusetts or California. John Edwards is a
> > > > > start at
> > > > > > > > > that. But that takes time. Muzzling the likes of
> > > > Donna
> > > > > Brazile
> > > > > > > > > can start right now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:58, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Excuse me, but Frank's argument is not merely that
> > > > > Republicans
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been campaigning more on the culture issue than on
> > > > > economic
> > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > but that the culture issue is PHONY, a form of
> > > > FALSE
> > > > > > > > > > CONSCIOUSNESS that puppetmaster Rove has planted
> > > > in
> > > > > people's
> > > > > > > > > > heads.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, what do you propose that the Democrats
> > > > > do? You
> > > > > > > > > > write:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > > > mask
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > contempt
> > > > > > > > > > for the people whose votes they need they'll keep
> > > > on
> > > > > losing."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, Frank falsely accuses the Republicans of
> > > > > inventing false
> > > > > > > > > > concerns about the culture, while you, defending
> > > > > Frank, urge
> > > > > > > > > > Democrats to a new politics which consists of
> > > > > falsely concealing
> > > > > > > > > > the contempt that they actually feel for the
> > > > > American people.
> > > > > > > > > > And why do the Democrats feel that contempt?
> > > > Because
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > American people actually think that things like
> > > > > degraded
> > > > > > > > > > entertainment and homosexual marriage are wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Given the left's fundamental hostility toward
> > > > > America and
> > > > > > > > Americans,
> > > > > > > > > > you liberals/leftists are going to be out of power
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > generations,
> > > > > > > > > > regardless of how bad the Republicans are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Ken
> > > > > > > > > > To: la
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:04.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, David Frum doesn't like his tone, you don't
> > > > like
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > tone and even I don't much like his tone -- I
> > > > found
> > > > > "One
> > > > > > > > > > Market Under God" almost unreadable -- but I don't
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > how he's wrong on the specifics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Republicans do spend more time campaigning on
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > war and character issues than they do on
> > > > economics.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not a weird theory, that's an observable
> > > > > fact.
> > > > > > > > > > Those dozen or
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > swing-state ballot initiatives that jump-started
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Republican get-out-the-vote efforts -- they
> > > > weren't
> > > > > > > > > > about tax policy. They were about gay marriage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another fact is that Republicans win elections
> > > > doing
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > When Democrats take the offense on economics (like
> > > > > 1992)
> > > > > > > > > > they win. When they take the defense on the
> > > > culture
> > > > > war
> > > > > > > > > > they lose.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He's also right that most voters aren't policy
> > > > wonks
> > > > > > > > > > anyway. A candidate's image as "one of us" or at
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > "a guy who gets it" is worth a lot. Again, Clinton
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > the last Democrat to even try to pull that off.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Not that Frum has the Dems best interest at heart,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > > > right that any serious attempt to return to power
> > > > > has to
> > > > > > > > > > start with an honest look at who votes for the
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > party and why. Making up stories about why we
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > *really* lose is the single most
> > > > counter-productive
> > > > > > > > > > thing we can
> > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > > > mask
> > > > > > > > > > their contempt for the people whose votes they
> > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > they'll keep on losing. I still remember a couple
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > aging Clintonistas doing election night commentary
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > CNN and saying the
> > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > "flyover country" and "the cow counties" on the
> > > > air.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > talk like that in public, you're dead no matter
> > > > how
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > your economics are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank has made a name for himself with
> > > > > > > > > > his balleyhooed yet phony and ridiculous
> > > > > > > > > > critique of conservatism. His selling point is
> > > > > > > > > > that he, unlike most liberals, understands
> > > > > > > > > > middle American conservatives' real interests
> > > > > > > > > > and values (which,
> > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > says, the conservatives themselves don't
> > > > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > > > > > because of the false consciousness imposed on
> > > > > > > > > > them by conservative mastermind Karl Rove); yet
> > > > > > > > > > every time Frank discusses the conservatives'
> > > > > > > > > > views, he gives the lie to his claim of
> > > > > > > > > > empathy, by cruelly and ignorantly dismissing
> > > > > > > > > > them, just like a liberal. Frank has another
> > > > > > > > > > article out pushing the same tired thesis, and
> > > > > > > > > > David Frum (an occasionally useful writer)
> > > > > > > > > > takes it apart, mainly by quoting long excerpts
> > > > from
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Posted by la at 08:27 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 5 13:12:41 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:12:41 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Paul Gottfried
Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland conservatives
Message-ID: <20050505171241.GB26062@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <1115241883.2813.2721.camel@crashbox> <20050505143851.55309.qmail@web51506.mail.yahoo.com> <20050505150004.GB25810@vectra.kalb.ath.cx> <001c01c55189$d6b85060$1a6010ac@paul>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001c01c55189$d6b85060$1a6010ac@paul>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1581 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 20388
Lines: 538
Sure. That's the ideological project that claims to be neutral organized
and imposed by people who claim to be professionals who are only there
to help you. As Frank points out, disagreement is irrational and totally
incomprehensible except as a result of manipulation by dark forces. What
some preacher in Kansas says to the people who decide to listen to him
is plainly a much bigger threat to democracy.
jk
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:48:08AM -0400, Paul Gottfried wrote:
> I suspect the alternative is voting to advance the multicultural project
> assumed if not explicated by Frank. PG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "i"
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland conservatives
>
>
> > I have a related question. So far as I can tell, "religion in politics"
> > means that people vote and so on based on what they think the world is
> > actually like, what the point of life is, what makes life good or bad,
> > how we know things, what things are really important or unimportant etc.
> > What's the purified alternative to that?
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:38:50AM -0700, i wrote:
> > > Who do you actually like?
> > >
> > > i
> > >
> > > Ken wrote:
> > > I've known the first part for a while. The leftists that irritate me the
> > > most are the ones who borrow the most from Christianity. The class-war
> > > kids with their adolescent apocalyse-millenium fantasies, the Leninists
> > > who think all we have to do is believe exactly the right things and
> > > believe them really hard and salvation will follow, even the Quaker
> > > Consensus anarchists -- they'll all be fed to the lions when I become
> > > Emperor.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 17:03, i wrote:
> > > > Yeah, and one day you lefties will realize that leftism is secularized
> > > > Christianity and that paganism, being the worship of nature, implies a
> > > > brutally hierarchical world like the jungle or ancient Rome. Yer
> > > > sawin' off the branch...
> > > >
> > > > i
> > > >
> > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > Since neither of those are municipal jurisdiction, we're OK.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. It's actually a pretty liberal religion on everything
> > > > that doesn't
> > > > > happen in bed, i.e. sex and death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > "Illegitimate" is a strong word. Putting those initiatives
> > > > on
> > > > > the ballot
> > > > > was in no way illegitimate. It was completely within the
> > > > > letter and
> > > > > spirit of the rules. To say different is to indulge in that
> > > > > "we didn't
> > > > > *really* lose" nonsense. If I think anything was
> > > > illegitimate,
> > > > > it was
> > > > > the apocalyptic tone of the campaign that accompanied them.
> > > > > But on this
> > > > > we disagree.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question isn't "How do we get the Republicans to stop
> > > > > working
> > > > > culture war issues?" We can't do that anyway. The question
> > > > is
> > > > > "What do
> > > > > we have to do different so that the wedge issues (or the
> > > > > window-dressing
> > > > > issues, if you prefer) become less of a liability?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Individual people, acting alone and spontaneously, don't
> > > > > collect the
> > > > > signatures for ballot initiatives. Party machines and their
> > > > > auxiliaries
> > > > > do that. So I understand the event less as a spontaneous
> > > > > grassroots
> > > > > phenomenon and more as a calculated device to draw
> > > > additional
> > > > > conservative voters to the polls in key swing states. It
> > > > would
> > > > > not have
> > > > > worked if it hadn't tapped into convictions that already
> > > > > existed, but
> > > > > that doesn't mean I take the decision to hold them at face
> > > > > value and
> > > > > stop there.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a more general way, most leftists don't really understand
> > > > > religious
> > > > > motivations. I sure don't. The only people we have at hand
> > > > to
> > > > > explain it
> > > > > to us are Muslims and not everything they say translates to
> > > > > the
> > > > > Christian experience. At bottom, we often figure that claims
> > > > > of
> > > > > religious motivation are a smokescreen for the same
> > > > > materialist
> > > > > motivations that we have.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've started doing advance work on a suburban municipal
> > > > > campaign that'll
> > > > > run this November. It's a bit of a culture shock for me. The
> > > > > candidate
> > > > > is an NDP member, but also a religious Catholic. His crew is
> > > > > all people
> > > > > from his church. The first set of pre-campaign speaking gigs
> > > > > are all the
> > > > > other local churches his priest booked him into, from which
> > > > > we're going
> > > > > to try and sign up volunteers. I have a feeling I'll be
> > > > > sitting at the
> > > > > back of the room and keeping very quiet for a while. I have
> > > > no
> > > > > idea how
> > > > > to talk to these people.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, what you call "the Republican Party and its
> > > > > religious arm"
> > > > > > is, in fact, people, human people in states throughout
> > > > this
> > > > > country who
> > > > > > put referenda on state ballots to ban same-sex marriage.
> > > > > Frank, and
> > > > > > you, seem to think that that is somehow a questionable or
> > > > > illegitimate
> > > > > > activity. But apart from your disagreeing with the measure
> > > > > > substantively, what is illegitimate about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me rephrase it to make it even more subjective: "I
> > > > > don't care
> > > > > > > about La Question Nationale, I don't think anybody else
> > > > > should care
> > > > > > > about it and the explanations I've heard for why they do
> > > > > care don't
> > > > > > > convince me."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The principled opposition to gay marriage was there
> > > > > before. Obviously,
> > > > > > > Karl Rove didn't invent it out of thin air. I think
> > > > that's
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > of a straw man argument. Legislating it from the bench
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Massachusetts and elsewhere compounded the opposition --
> > > > > Frank
> > > > > > > doesn't want to admit to that one. I do think that,
> > > > > because of the
> > > > > > > very small numbers involved, it was irrational to make
> > > > (or
> > > > > believe)
> > > > > > > some of the apocalyptic claims that came out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would voters care about it to the same degree if the
> > > > > Republican Party
> > > > > > > and its religious arm had not done a full-court press in
> > > > > an election
> > > > > > > year? You say they would. Frank says they wouldn't. I'm
> > > > > inclined to
> > > > > > > agree with Frank. More to the point, could the Dems hit
> > > > an
> > > > > economic
> > > > > > > issue, say ending the guaranteed benefits of Social
> > > > > Security, just as
> > > > > > > hard and convince people to care more about that? We'll
> > > > > never know
> > > > > > > until they try.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:51, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having said that the concept a "real issue" is
> > > > > meaningless in the
> > > > > > > > political sphere, since all that matters is what
> > > > people
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > care about, how can you say: "I personally think La
> > > > > Question
> > > > > > > > Nationale is a phony issue." If there is no "real"
> > > > > issue, there
> > > > > > > > can be no phony issue either. There's only what people
> > > > > happen to
> > > > > > > > care about. So, even though at the electoral level,
> > > > "the
> > > > > real" is
> > > > > > > > not the point, please don't fall into the error of
> > > > > thinking that
> > > > > > > > the question of what is real doesn't matter at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever solicited
> > > > > votes from a
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't respect?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course not. As I said in another e-mail, the issue
> > > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > whether Republicans exploit people's feelings and
> > > > > principles, since
> > > > > > > > of course they do; the issue is whether people
> > > > genuinely
> > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > feelings and principles and have reasons for having
> > > > > them. Frank's
> > > > > > > > position is that they would not have those feelings
> > > > and
> > > > > principles,
> > > > > > > > absent Rove's manipulations. Frank's underlying belief
> > > > > is that
> > > > > > > > anyone who thinks that homosexual marriage is a
> > > > problem
> > > > > for society
> > > > > > > > is simply irrational. Please get that that's my basic
> > > > > point.
> > > > > > > > Otherwise you keep talking past me and I'm talking
> > > > past
> > > > > you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What I said was
> > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > describe
> > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to go,
> > > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't stop
> > > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can sack
> > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have no problem with this restatement of your
> > > > > position.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Look, anybody who already knows what "the real
> > > > issues"
> > > > > are belongs
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > lobbying/protest politics, not electoral. Electoral
> > > > > politicians
> > > > > > > > > have to be agnostic about that. The real issues are
> > > > > whatever the
> > > > > > > > > voters say they are. That's just a fact. People care
> > > > > about these
> > > > > > > > > things and they vote accordingly. How they came to
> > > > > care about
> > > > > > > > > them is
> > > > > > > > secondary.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Remember what I wrote the day after the election?
> > > > > "There's no such
> > > > > > > > job
> > > > > > > > > as President of New York and San Francisco, so the
> > > > > Dems need to
> > > > > > > > > quit running for it. And the first step is to ditch
> > > > > the gays."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A while ago I was picking the brain of an ex-Liberal
> > > > > Party
> > > > > > > > > campaign manager. He said, "If you're going to play
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > democratic game, you can never say the voter is
> > > > wrong.
> > > > > You can
> > > > > > > > > say he didn't get our message or didn't understand
> > > > it
> > > > > or didn't
> > > > > > > > > like it. But you can never say he's wrong."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here in Quebec, I personally think La Question
> > > > > Nationale is a
> > > > > > > > > phony issue. But if I want to get votes for the NDP,
> > > > I
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > treat it
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > it was real because enough voters think it's real.
> > > > > Same rules
> > > > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Kansas.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever solicited
> > > > > votes from a
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't respect?
> > > > > Everybody does
> > > > > > > > > that. Everybody has to. But you will never catch a
> > > > > Republican
> > > > > > > > > spindoctor
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > national TV using phrases like "Sodom-on-the-Hudson"
> > > > > or "The
> > > > > > > > People's
> > > > > > > > > Republic of Vermont".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't say Frank needed to conceal his contempt. I
> > > > > didn't find
> > > > > > > > > his account of the Christmas campaign all that
> > > > > contemptuous of the
> > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > audience, as opposed to the media figures who ran
> > > > it.
> > > > > What I said
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > describe
> > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to go,
> > > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't stop
> > > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can sack
> > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, the Dems also need to open up some seats at the
> > > > > head table
> > > > > > > > > for people who genuinely don't have that contempt
> > > > for
> > > > > anyone not
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > York, Massachusetts or California. John Edwards is a
> > > > > start at
> > > > > > > > > that. But that takes time. Muzzling the likes of
> > > > Donna
> > > > > Brazile
> > > > > > > > > can start right now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:58, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Excuse me, but Frank's argument is not merely that
> > > > > Republicans
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been campaigning more on the culture issue than on
> > > > > economic
> > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > but that the culture issue is PHONY, a form of
> > > > FALSE
> > > > > > > > > > CONSCIOUSNESS that puppetmaster Rove has planted
> > > > in
> > > > > people's
> > > > > > > > > > heads.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, what do you propose that the Democrats
> > > > > do? You
> > > > > > > > > > write:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > > > mask
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > contempt
> > > > > > > > > > for the people whose votes they need they'll keep
> > > > on
> > > > > losing."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, Frank falsely accuses the Republicans of
> > > > > inventing false
> > > > > > > > > > concerns about the culture, while you, defending
> > > > > Frank, urge
> > > > > > > > > > Democrats to a new politics which consists of
> > > > > falsely concealing
> > > > > > > > > > the contempt that they actually feel for the
> > > > > American people.
> > > > > > > > > > And why do the Democrats feel that contempt?
> > > > Because
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > American people actually think that things like
> > > > > degraded
> > > > > > > > > > entertainment and homosexual marriage are wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Given the left's fundamental hostility toward
> > > > > America and
> > > > > > > > Americans,
> > > > > > > > > > you liberals/leftists are going to be out of power
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > generations,
> > > > > > > > > > regardless of how bad the Republicans are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Ken
> > > > > > > > > > To: la
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:04.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, David Frum doesn't like his tone, you don't
> > > > like
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > tone and even I don't much like his tone -- I
> > > > found
> > > > > "One
> > > > > > > > > > Market Under God" almost unreadable -- but I don't
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > how he's wrong on the specifics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Republicans do spend more time campaigning on
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > war and character issues than they do on
> > > > economics.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not a weird theory, that's an observable
> > > > > fact.
> > > > > > > > > > Those dozen or
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > swing-state ballot initiatives that jump-started
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Republican get-out-the-vote efforts -- they
> > > > weren't
> > > > > > > > > > about tax policy. They were about gay marriage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another fact is that Republicans win elections
> > > > doing
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > When Democrats take the offense on economics (like
> > > > > 1992)
> > > > > > > > > > they win. When they take the defense on the
> > > > culture
> > > > > war
> > > > > > > > > > they lose.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He's also right that most voters aren't policy
> > > > wonks
> > > > > > > > > > anyway. A candidate's image as "one of us" or at
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > "a guy who gets it" is worth a lot. Again, Clinton
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > the last Democrat to even try to pull that off.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Not that Frum has the Dems best interest at heart,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > > > right that any serious attempt to return to power
> > > > > has to
> > > > > > > > > > start with an honest look at who votes for the
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > party and why. Making up stories about why we
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > *really* lose is the single most
> > > > counter-productive
> > > > > > > > > > thing we can
> > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > > > mask
> > > > > > > > > > their contempt for the people whose votes they
> > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > they'll keep on losing. I still remember a couple
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > aging Clintonistas doing election night commentary
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > CNN and saying the
> > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > "flyover country" and "the cow counties" on the
> > > > air.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > talk like that in public, you're dead no matter
> > > > how
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > your economics are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank has made a name for himself with
> > > > > > > > > > his balleyhooed yet phony and ridiculous
> > > > > > > > > > critique of conservatism. His selling point is
> > > > > > > > > > that he, unlike most liberals, understands
> > > > > > > > > > middle American conservatives' real interests
> > > > > > > > > > and values (which,
> > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > says, the conservatives themselves don't
> > > > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > > > > > because of the false consciousness imposed on
> > > > > > > > > > them by conservative mastermind Karl Rove); yet
> > > > > > > > > > every time Frank discusses the conservatives'
> > > > > > > > > > views, he gives the lie to his claim of
> > > > > > > > > > empathy, by cruelly and ignorantly dismissing
> > > > > > > > > > them, just like a liberal. Frank has another
> > > > > > > > > > article out pushing the same tired thesis, and
> > > > > > > > > > David Frum (an occasionally useful writer)
> > > > > > > > > > takes it apart, mainly by quoting long excerpts
> > > > from
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Posted by la at 08:27 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 5 17:45:41 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:45:41 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Ken
Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland conservatives
Message-ID: <20050505214541.GA27433@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050505174426.85712.qmail@web51505.mail.yahoo.com> <1115321248.10013.31.camel@crashbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1115321248.10013.31.camel@crashbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1586 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 29704
Lines: 737
Nothing's automatic. If you take the view though that present-day
left/liberalism is a matter of working toward a society administered
comprehensively to make things as neutral and equal as possible
consistent with security and efficiency then if you don't like that the
advantage of the spoils system is that it lets in a broad range of
inarticulable and particularistic purposes and understandings. The game
isn't fixed in advance in favor of left/liberalism by putting supposedly
neutral professionals who want to run the world by their collective
self-generated standards in charge of everything.
jk
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:27:29PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> How does it follow that a non-spoils system is automatically controlled
> by the left?
>
> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 13:44, i wrote:
> > That reminds me: the professionalization of the civil service has
> > guaranteed its control by the left. What do people think of
> > abolishing this and returning to the spoils system?
> >
> > i
> >
> > Jim Kalb wrote:
> > Sure. That's the ideological project that claims to be neutral
> > organized
> > and imposed by people who claim to be professionals who are
> > only there
> > to help you. As Frank points out, disagreement is irrational
> > and totally
> > incomprehensible except as a result of manipulation by dark
> > forces. What
> > some preacher in Kansas says to the people who decide to
> > listen to him
> > is plainly a much bigger threat to democracy.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:48:08AM -0400, Paul Gottfried
> > wrote:
> > > I suspect the alternative is voting to advance the
> > multicultural project
> > > assumed if not explicated by Frank. PG
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "i"
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > conservatives
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have a related question. So far as I can tell, "religion
> > in politics"
> > > > means that people vote and so on based on what they think
> > the world is
> > > > actually like, what the point of life is, what makes life
> > good or bad,
> > > > how we know things, what things are really important or
> > unimportant etc.
> > > > What's the purified alternative to that?
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:38:50AM -0700, i
> > wrote:
> > > > > Who do you actually like?
> > > > >
> > > > > i
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > I've known the first part for a while. The leftists that
> > irritate me the
> > > > > most are the ones who borrow the most from Christianity.
> > The class-war
> > > > > kids with their adolescent apocalyse-millenium
> > fantasies, the Leninists
> > > > > who think all we have to do is believe exactly the right
> > things and
> > > > > believe them really hard and salvation will follow, even
> > the Quaker
> > > > > Consensus anarchists -- they'll all be fed to the lions
> > when I become
> > > > > Emperor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 17:03, i wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, and one day you lefties will realize that
> > leftism is secularized
> > > > > > Christianity and that paganism, being the worship of
> > nature, implies a
> > > > > > brutally hierarchical world like the jungle or ancient
> > Rome. Yer
> > > > > > sawin' off the branch...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > > Since neither of those are municipal jurisdiction,
> > we're OK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. It's actually a pretty liberal religion on
> > everything
> > > > > > that doesn't
> > > > > > > happen in bed, i.e. sex and death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > > > "Illegitimate" is a strong word. Putting those
> > initiatives
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > the ballot
> > > > > > > was in no way illegitimate. It was completely within
> > the
> > > > > > > letter and
> > > > > > > spirit of the rules. To say different is to indulge
> > in that
> > > > > > > "we didn't
> > > > > > > *really* lose" nonsense. If I think anything was
> > > > > > illegitimate,
> > > > > > > it was
> > > > > > > the apocalyptic tone of the campaign that
> > accompanied them.
> > > > > > > But on this
> > > > > > > we disagree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question isn't "How do we get the Republicans to
> > stop
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > culture war issues?" We can't do that anyway. The
> > question
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > "What do
> > > > > > > we have to do different so that the wedge issues (or
> > the
> > > > > > > window-dressing
> > > > > > > issues, if you prefer) become less of a liability?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Individual people, acting alone and spontaneously,
> > don't
> > > > > > > collect the
> > > > > > > signatures for ballot initiatives. Party machines
> > and their
> > > > > > > auxiliaries
> > > > > > > do that. So I understand the event less as a
> > spontaneous
> > > > > > > grassroots
> > > > > > > phenomenon and more as a calculated device to draw
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > conservative voters to the polls in key swing
> > states. It
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > not have
> > > > > > > worked if it hadn't tapped into convictions that
> > already
> > > > > > > existed, but
> > > > > > > that doesn't mean I take the decision to hold them
> > at face
> > > > > > > value and
> > > > > > > stop there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In a more general way, most leftists don't really
> > understand
> > > > > > > religious
> > > > > > > motivations. I sure don't. The only people we have
> > at hand
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > explain it
> > > > > > > to us are Muslims and not everything they say
> > translates to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Christian experience. At bottom, we often figure
> > that claims
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > religious motivation are a smokescreen for the same
> > > > > > > materialist
> > > > > > > motivations that we have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've started doing advance work on a suburban
> > municipal
> > > > > > > campaign that'll
> > > > > > > run this November. It's a bit of a culture shock for
> > me. The
> > > > > > > candidate
> > > > > > > is an NDP member, but also a religious Catholic. His
> > crew is
> > > > > > > all people
> > > > > > > from his church. The first set of pre-campaign
> > speaking gigs
> > > > > > > are all the
> > > > > > > other local churches his priest booked him into,
> > from which
> > > > > > > we're going
> > > > > > > to try and sign up volunteers. I have a feeling I'll
> > be
> > > > > > > sitting at the
> > > > > > > back of the room and keeping very quiet for a while.
> > I have
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > idea how
> > > > > > > to talk to these people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Furthermore, what you call "the Republican Party
> > and its
> > > > > > > religious arm"
> > > > > > > > is, in fact, people, human people in states
> > throughout
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > country who
> > > > > > > > put referenda on state ballots to ban same-sex
> > marriage.
> > > > > > > Frank, and
> > > > > > > > you, seem to think that that is somehow a
> > questionable or
> > > > > > > illegitimate
> > > > > > > > activity. But apart from your disagreeing with the
> > measure
> > > > > > > > substantively, what is illegitimate about it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let me rephrase it to make it even more
> > subjective: "I
> > > > > > > don't care
> > > > > > > > > about La Question Nationale, I don't think
> > anybody else
> > > > > > > should care
> > > > > > > > > about it and the explanations I've heard for why
> > they do
> > > > > > > care don't
> > > > > > > > > convince me."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The principled opposition to gay marriage was
> > there
> > > > > > > before. Obviously,
> > > > > > > > > Karl Rove didn't invent it out of thin air. I
> > think
> > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > of a straw man argument. Legislating it from the
> > bench
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Massachusetts and elsewhere compounded the
> > opposition --
> > > > > > > Frank
> > > > > > > > > doesn't want to admit to that one. I do think
> > that,
> > > > > > > because of the
> > > > > > > > > very small numbers involved, it was irrational
> > to make
> > > > > > (or
> > > > > > > believe)
> > > > > > > > > some of the apocalyptic claims that came out.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Would voters care about it to the same degree if
> > the
> > > > > > > Republican Party
> > > > > > > > > and its religious arm had not done a full-court
> > press in
> > > > > > > an election
> > > > > > > > > year? You say they would. Frank says they
> > wouldn't. I'm
> > > > > > > inclined to
> > > > > > > > > agree with Frank. More to the point, could the
> > Dems hit
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > economic
> > > > > > > > > issue, say ending the guaranteed benefits of
> > Social
> > > > > > > Security, just as
> > > > > > > > > hard and convince people to care more about
> > that? We'll
> > > > > > > never know
> > > > > > > > > until they try.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:51, la
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Having said that the concept a "real issue" is
> > > > > > > meaningless in the
> > > > > > > > > > political sphere, since all that matters is
> > what
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > care about, how can you say: "I personally
> > think La
> > > > > > > Question
> > > > > > > > > > Nationale is a phony issue." If there is no
> > "real"
> > > > > > > issue, there
> > > > > > > > > > can be no phony issue either. There's only
> > what people
> > > > > > > happen to
> > > > > > > > > > care about. So, even though at the electoral
> > level,
> > > > > > "the
> > > > > > > real" is
> > > > > > > > > > not the point, please don't fall into the
> > error of
> > > > > > > thinking that
> > > > > > > > > > the question of what is real doesn't matter at
> > all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever
> > solicited
> > > > > > > votes from a
> > > > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't
> > respect?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course not. As I said in another e-mail,
> > the issue
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > whether Republicans exploit people's feelings
> > and
> > > > > > > principles, since
> > > > > > > > > > of course they do; the issue is whether people
> > > > > > genuinely
> > > > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > > > feelings and principles and have reasons for
> > having
> > > > > > > them. Frank's
> > > > > > > > > > position is that they would not have those
> > feelings
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > principles,
> > > > > > > > > > absent Rove's manipulations. Frank's
> > underlying belief
> > > > > > > is that
> > > > > > > > > > anyone who thinks that homosexual marriage is
> > a
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > for society
> > > > > > > > > > is simply irrational. Please get that that's
> > my basic
> > > > > > > point.
> > > > > > > > > > Otherwise you keep talking past me and I'm
> > talking
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What I said was
> > > > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to
> > go,
> > > > > > filled
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't
> > stop
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can
> > sack
> > > > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with this restatement of
> > your
> > > > > > > position.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Look, anybody who already knows what "the
> > real
> > > > > > issues"
> > > > > > > are belongs
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > lobbying/protest politics, not electoral.
> > Electoral
> > > > > > > politicians
> > > > > > > > > > > have to be agnostic about that. The real
> > issues are
> > > > > > > whatever the
> > > > > > > > > > > voters say they are. That's just a fact.
> > People care
> > > > > > > about these
> > > > > > > > > > > things and they vote accordingly. How they
> > came to
> > > > > > > care about
> > > > > > > > > > > them is
> > > > > > > > > > secondary.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Remember what I wrote the day after the
> > election?
> > > > > > > "There's no such
> > > > > > > > > > job
> > > > > > > > > > > as President of New York and San Francisco,
> > so the
> > > > > > > Dems need to
> > > > > > > > > > > quit running for it. And the first step is
> > to ditch
> > > > > > > the gays."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A while ago I was picking the brain of an
> > ex-Liberal
> > > > > > > Party
> > > > > > > > > > > campaign manager. He said, "If you're going
> > to play
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > democratic game, you can never say the voter
> > is
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > You can
> > > > > > > > > > > say he didn't get our message or didn't
> > understand
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > or didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > like it. But you can never say he's wrong."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Here in Quebec, I personally think La
> > Question
> > > > > > > Nationale is a
> > > > > > > > > > > phony issue. But if I want to get votes for
> > the NDP,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > treat it
> > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > it was real because enough voters think it's
> > real.
> > > > > > > Same rules
> > > > > > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > Kansas.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever
> > solicited
> > > > > > > votes from a
> > > > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't
> > respect?
> > > > > > > Everybody does
> > > > > > > > > > > that. Everybody has to. But you will never
> > catch a
> > > > > > > Republican
> > > > > > > > > > > spindoctor
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > national TV using phrases like
> > "Sodom-on-the-Hudson"
> > > > > > > or "The
> > > > > > > > > > People's
> > > > > > > > > > > Republic of Vermont".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say Frank needed to conceal his
> > contempt. I
> > > > > > > didn't find
> > > > > > > > > > > his account of the Christmas campaign all
> > that
> > > > > > > contemptuous of the
> > > > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > > > audience, as opposed to the media figures
> > who ran
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > What I said
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to
> > go,
> > > > > > filled
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't
> > stop
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can
> > sack
> > > > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, the Dems also need to open up some
> > seats at the
> > > > > > > head table
> > > > > > > > > > > for people who genuinely don't have that
> > contempt
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > anyone not
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > > > York, Massachusetts or California. John
> > Edwards is a
> > > > > > > start at
> > > > > > > > > > > that. But that takes time. Muzzling the
> > likes of
> > > > > > Donna
> > > > > > > Brazile
> > > > > > > > > > > can start right now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:58, la
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Excuse me, but Frank's argument is not
> > merely that
> > > > > > > Republicans
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > been campaigning more on the culture issue
> > than on
> > > > > > > economic
> > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but that the culture issue is PHONY, a
> > form of
> > > > > > FALSE
> > > > > > > > > > > > CONSCIOUSNESS that puppetmaster Rove has
> > planted
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > people's
> > > > > > > > > > > > heads.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, what do you propose that the
> > Democrats
> > > > > > > do? You
> > > > > > > > > > > > write:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Frum's also right that until the Dems
> > learn to
> > > > > > mask
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > contempt
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the people whose votes they need
> > they'll keep
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > losing."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, Frank falsely accuses the Republicans
> > of
> > > > > > > inventing false
> > > > > > > > > > > > concerns about the culture, while you,
> > defending
> > > > > > > Frank, urge
> > > > > > > > > > > > Democrats to a new politics which consists
> > of
> > > > > > > falsely concealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the contempt that they actually feel for
> > the
> > > > > > > American people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And why do the Democrats feel that
> > contempt?
> > > > > > Because
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > American people actually think that things
> > like
> > > > > > > degraded
> > > > > > > > > > > > entertainment and homosexual marriage are
> > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Given the left's fundamental hostility
> > toward
> > > > > > > America and
> > > > > > > > > > Americans,
> > > > > > > > > > > > you liberals/leftists are going to be out
> > of power
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > generations,
> > > > > > > > > > > > regardless of how bad the Republicans are.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ken
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: la
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:04.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on
> > heartland
> > > > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > OK, David Frum doesn't like his tone, you
> > don't
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > > tone and even I don't much like his tone
> > -- I
> > > > > > found
> > > > > > > "One
> > > > > > > > > > > > Market Under God" almost unreadable -- but
> > I don't
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > how he's wrong on the specifics.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Republicans do spend more time campaigning
> > on
> > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > war and character issues than they do on
> > > > > > economics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a weird theory, that's an
> > observable
> > > > > > > fact.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Those dozen or
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > swing-state ballot initiatives that
> > jump-started
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Republican get-out-the-vote efforts --
> > they
> > > > > > weren't
> > > > > > > > > > > > about tax policy. They were about gay
> > marriage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another fact is that Republicans win
> > elections
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > When Democrats take the offense on
> > economics (like
> > > > > > > 1992)
> > > > > > > > > > > > they win. When they take the defense on
> > the
> > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > war
> > > > > > > > > > > > they lose.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > He's also right that most voters aren't
> > policy
> > > > > > wonks
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. A candidate's image as "one of us"
> > or at
> > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > > > "a guy who gets it" is worth a lot. Again,
> > Clinton
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > the last Democrat to even try to pull that
> > off.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not that Frum has the Dems best interest
> > at heart,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > > > > > right that any serious attempt to return
> > to power
> > > > > > > has to
> > > > > > > > > > > > start with an honest look at who votes for
> > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > party and why. Making up stories about why
> > we
> > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > *really* lose is the single most
> > > > > > counter-productive
> > > > > > > > > > > > thing we can
> > > > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Frum's also right that until the Dems
> > learn to
> > > > > > mask
> > > > > > > > > > > > their contempt for the people whose votes
> > they
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > they'll keep on losing. I still remember a
> > couple
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > aging Clintonistas doing election night
> > commentary
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > CNN and saying the
> > > > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > "flyover country" and "the cow counties"
> > on the
> > > > > > air.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > > talk like that in public, you're dead no
> > matter
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > your economics are.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank has made a name for himself
> > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > his balleyhooed yet phony and ridiculous
> > > > > > > > > > > > critique of conservatism. His selling
> > point is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that he, unlike most liberals, understands
> > > > > > > > > > > > middle American conservatives' real
> > interests
> > > > > > > > > > > > and values (which,
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > says, the conservatives themselves don't
> > > > > > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > > > > > > > because of the false consciousness imposed
> > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > them by conservative mastermind Karl
> > Rove); yet
> > > > > > > > > > > > every time Frank discusses the
> > conservatives'
> > > > > > > > > > > > views, he gives the lie to his claim of
> > > > > > > > > > > > empathy, by cruelly and ignorantly
> > dismissing
> > > > > > > > > > > > them, just like a liberal. Frank has
> > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > article out pushing the same tired thesis,
> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > David Frum (an occasionally useful writer)
> > > > > > > > > > > > takes it apart, mainly by quoting long
> > excerpts
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Posted by la at 08:27 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> > === message truncated ===
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 5 18:47:08 2005
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:47:08 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Ken
Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland conservatives
Message-ID: <20050505224708.GB27433@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
References: <20050504210346.21080.qmail@web51507.mail.yahoo.com> <1115241883.2813.2721.camel@crashbox> <04c501c551b0$e6850b60$ca62fea9@h6l3p> <1115332116.10008.158.camel@crashbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1115332116.10008.158.camel@crashbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1587 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 25736
Lines: 569
The difficult point though is whether there will be something to
relativize the hierarchy or whether the hierarchy will become the
absolute. The Left combines social constructivism with denial of
standards that transcend human will. I think that's why many leftists
find hierarchy alarming and want to pretend they can get along without
it.
jk
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:28:39PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> I don't consider "hierarchy" a dirty word. In most conversations on the
> subject with other leftists, I'm the one defending it.
>
> The anarchist left has turned anti-hierarchy into a religion of its own.
> There are few things they're more dogmatic about than that. I never
> bought into that, hierarchy itself as the root of all evil. It's a tool.
> You use it when you need it, you put it away when you don't. You do what
> you can to get someone you trust on top of it.
>
> Thing is, when you take anti-hierarchy as far as they have, what you get
> is the Tyranny of Structurelessness:
>
> http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
>
> They still have a hierarchy -- it's impossible for humans not to -- but
> you can never get a straight answer on who's in it and who's not, and
> don't even ask how you yourself can get into it. It's all very cliquey
> and secretive.
>
> Compared to that, I'm more comfortable in an explicit hierarchy with
> bosses that get to be bosses through a process everyone understands and
> aren't afraid to act like bosses once they get there.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 16:27, la wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if Ken realizes what he's said here. Ian said:
> >
> > > leftism is secularized Christianity and that paganism, being the
> > worship of nature, implies a brutally hierarchical world ...
> >
> > In other words, the source of leftism's own ideals is, whether leftists
> > realize it or not, Christianity, and if leftism dispenses entirely with
> > Christianity, it will find itself in a brutal hierarchical world, a
> > world that is the opposite of everything leftists believe in.
> >
> > And how does Ken reply? He says he's aware that leftism is secularized
> > Christianity, but then he goes on to say that the leftists he most
> > dislikes are the ones whose thinking is most influenced by Christianity.
> > The implication is that Ken's ideal is a thoroughly de-Christianized
> > leftism. But, in the absence of providing any answer to the second part
> > of Ian's argument (that de-Christianized leftism means brutal
> > hierarchy), Ken has tacitly admitted that where he's heading is toward a
> > brutal hierarchy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message ----
> > From: "Ken"
> > To: "i"
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005
> > 5:24.p.m. Subject: Re: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > conservatives
> >
> > > I've known the first part for a while. The leftists that irritate me
> > > the most are the ones who borrow the most from Christianity. The
> > > class-war kids with their adolescent apocalyse-millenium fantasies,
> > > the Leninists who think all we have to do is believe exactly the
> > > right things and believe them really hard and salvation will follow,
> > > even the Quaker Consensus anarchists -- they'll all be fed to the
> > > lions when I become Emperor.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 17:03, i wrote:
> > > > Yeah, and one day you lefties will realize that leftism is
> > > > secularized Christianity and that paganism, being the worship of
> > > > nature, implies a brutally hierarchical world like the jungle or
> > > > ancient Rome. Yer sawin' off the branch...
> > > >
> > > > i
> > > >
> > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > Since neither of those are municipal jurisdiction, we're OK.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. It's actually a pretty liberal religion on everything
> > > > that doesn't
> > > > > happen in bed, i.e. sex and death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > "Illegitimate" is a strong word. Putting those initiatives
> > > > on
> > > > > the ballot
> > > > > was in no way illegitimate. It was completely within the
> > > > > letter and
> > > > > spirit of the rules. To say different is to indulge in
> > > > that > "we didn't
> > > > > *really* lose" nonsense. If I think anything was
> > > > illegitimate,
> > > > > it was
> > > > > the apocalyptic tone of the campaign that accompanied
> > > > them. > But on this
> > > > > we disagree.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question isn't "How do we get the Republicans to stop
> > > > > working
> > > > > culture war issues?" We can't do that anyway. The question
> > > > is
> > > > > "What do
> > > > > we have to do different so that the wedge issues (or the
> > > > > window-dressing
> > > > > issues, if you prefer) become less of a liability?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Individual people, acting alone and spontaneously, don't
> > > > > collect the
> > > > > signatures for ballot initiatives. Party machines and
> > > > their > auxiliaries
> > > > > do that. So I understand the event less as a spontaneous
> > > > > grassroots
> > > > > phenomenon and more as a calculated device to draw
> > > > additional
> > > > > conservative voters to the polls in key swing states. It
> > > > would
> > > > > not have
> > > > > worked if it hadn't tapped into convictions that already
> > > > > existed, but
> > > > > that doesn't mean I take the decision to hold them at face
> > > > > value and
> > > > > stop there.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a more general way, most leftists don't really
> > > > understand > religious
> > > > > motivations. I sure don't. The only people we have at hand
> > > > to
> > > > > explain it
> > > > > to us are Muslims and not everything they say translates
> > > > to > the
> > > > > Christian experience. At bottom, we often figure that
> > > > claims > of
> > > > > religious motivation are a smokescreen for the same
> > > > > materialist
> > > > > motivations that we have.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've started doing advance work on a suburban municipal
> > > > > campaign that'll
> > > > > run this November. It's a bit of a culture shock for me.
> > > > The > candidate
> > > > > is an NDP member, but also a religious Catholic. His crew
> > > > is > all people
> > > > > from his church. The first set of pre-campaign speaking
> > > > gigs > are all the
> > > > > other local churches his priest booked him into, from
> > > > which > we're going
> > > > > to try and sign up volunteers. I have a feeling I'll be
> > > > > sitting at the
> > > > > back of the room and keeping very quiet for a while. I
> > > > have no
> > > > > idea how
> > > > > to talk to these people.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, what you call "the Republican Party and its
> > > > > religious arm"
> > > > > > is, in fact, people, human people in states throughout
> > > > this
> > > > > country who
> > > > > > put referenda on state ballots to ban same-sex marriage.
> > > > > Frank, and
> > > > > > you, seem to think that that is somehow a questionable
> > > > or > illegitimate
> > > > > > activity. But apart from your disagreeing with the
> > > > measure > > substantively, what is illegitimate about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me rephrase it to make it even more subjective: "I
> > > > > don't care
> > > > > > > about La Question Nationale, I don't think anybody
> > > > else > should care
> > > > > > > about it and the explanations I've heard for why they
> > > > do > care don't
> > > > > > > convince me."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The principled opposition to gay marriage was there
> > > > > before. Obviously,
> > > > > > > Karl Rove didn't invent it out of thin air. I think
> > > > that's
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > of a straw man argument. Legislating it from the bench
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Massachusetts and elsewhere compounded the opposition
> > > > -- > Frank
> > > > > > > doesn't want to admit to that one. I do think that,
> > > > > because of the
> > > > > > > very small numbers involved, it was irrational to make
> > > > (or
> > > > > believe)
> > > > > > > some of the apocalyptic claims that came out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would voters care about it to the same degree if the
> > > > > Republican Party
> > > > > > > and its religious arm had not done a full-court press
> > > > in > an election
> > > > > > > year? You say they would. Frank says they wouldn't.
> > > > I'm > inclined to
> > > > > > > agree with Frank. More to the point, could the Dems
> > > > hit an
> > > > > economic
> > > > > > > issue, say ending the guaranteed benefits of Social
> > > > > Security, just as
> > > > > > > hard and convince people to care more about that?
> > > > We'll > never know
> > > > > > > until they try.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:51, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having said that the concept a "real issue" is
> > > > > meaningless in the
> > > > > > > > political sphere, since all that matters is what
> > > > people
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > care about, how can you say: "I personally think La
> > > > > Question
> > > > > > > > Nationale is a phony issue." If there is no "real"
> > > > > issue, there
> > > > > > > > can be no phony issue either. There's only what
> > > > people > happen to
> > > > > > > > care about. So, even though at the electoral level,
> > > > "the
> > > > > real" is
> > > > > > > > not the point, please don't fall into the error of
> > > > > thinking that
> > > > > > > > the question of what is real doesn't matter at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever
> > > > solicited > votes from a
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't respect?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course not. As I said in another e-mail, the
> > > > issue is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > whether Republicans exploit people's feelings and
> > > > > principles, since
> > > > > > > > of course they do; the issue is whether people
> > > > genuinely
> > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > feelings and principles and have reasons for having
> > > > > them. Frank's
> > > > > > > > position is that they would not have those feelings
> > > > and
> > > > > principles,
> > > > > > > > absent Rove's manipulations. Frank's underlying
> > > > belief > is that
> > > > > > > > anyone who thinks that homosexual marriage is a
> > > > problem
> > > > > for society
> > > > > > > > is simply irrational. Please get that that's my
> > > > basic > point.
> > > > > > > > Otherwise you keep talking past me and I'm talking
> > > > past
> > > > > you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What I said was
> > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > describe
> > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to go,
> > > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't stop
> > > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can sack
> > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have no problem with this restatement of your
> > > > > position.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > From: "Ken" k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Look, anybody who already knows what "the real
> > > > issues"
> > > > > are belongs
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > lobbying/protest politics, not electoral.
> > > > Electoral > politicians
> > > > > > > > > have to be agnostic about that. The real issues
> > > > are > whatever the
> > > > > > > > > voters say they are. That's just a fact. People
> > > > care > about these
> > > > > > > > > things and they vote accordingly. How they came to
> > > > > care about
> > > > > > > > > them is
> > > > > > > > secondary.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Remember what I wrote the day after the election?
> > > > > "There's no such
> > > > > > > > job
> > > > > > > > > as President of New York and San Francisco, so the
> > > > > Dems need to
> > > > > > > > > quit running for it. And the first step is to
> > > > ditch > the gays."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A while ago I was picking the brain of an
> > > > ex-Liberal > Party
> > > > > > > > > campaign manager. He said, "If you're going to
> > > > play > the
> > > > > > > > > democratic game, you can never say the voter is
> > > > wrong.
> > > > > You can
> > > > > > > > > say he didn't get our message or didn't understand
> > > > it
> > > > > or didn't
> > > > > > > > > like it. But you can never say he's wrong."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here in Quebec, I personally think La Question
> > > > > Nationale is a
> > > > > > > > > phony issue. But if I want to get votes for the
> > > > NDP, I
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > treat it
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > it was real because enough voters think it's real.
> > > > > Same rules
> > > > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Kansas.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting no Republican has ever
> > > > solicited > votes from a
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > he personally doesn't like and doesn't respect?
> > > > > Everybody does
> > > > > > > > > that. Everybody has to. But you will never catch a
> > > > > Republican
> > > > > > > > > spindoctor
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > national TV using phrases like
> > > > "Sodom-on-the-Hudson" > or "The
> > > > > > > > People's
> > > > > > > > > Republic of Vermont".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't say Frank needed to conceal his
> > > > contempt. I > didn't find
> > > > > > > > > his account of the Christmas campaign all that
> > > > > contemptuous of the
> > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > audience, as opposed to the media figures who ran
> > > > it.
> > > > > What I said
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > that party spokespeople cannot be allowed to
> > > > describe
> > > > > large areas
> > > > > > > > > of the country as places they don't want to go,
> > > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > people they don't want to talk to. You can't stop
> > > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > thinking it, but if you're serious, you can sack
> > > > > people for
> > > > > > > > > saying it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, the Dems also need to open up some seats at
> > > > the > head table
> > > > > > > > > for people who genuinely don't have that contempt
> > > > for
> > > > > anyone not
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > New
> > > > > > > > > York, Massachusetts or California. John Edwards
> > > > is a > start at
> > > > > > > > > that. But that takes time. Muzzling the likes of
> > > > Donna
> > > > > Brazile
> > > > > > > > > can start right now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:58, la
> > > > wrote: > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Excuse me, but Frank's argument is not merely
> > > > that > Republicans
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been campaigning more on the culture issue than
> > > > on > economic
> > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > but that the culture issue is PHONY, a form of
> > > > FALSE
> > > > > > > > > > CONSCIOUSNESS that puppetmaster Rove has planted
> > > > in
> > > > > people's
> > > > > > > > > > heads.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, what do you propose that the
> > > > Democrats > do? You
> > > > > > > > > > write:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > > > mask
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > contempt
> > > > > > > > > > for the people whose votes they need they'll
> > > > keep on
> > > > > losing."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, Frank falsely accuses the Republicans of
> > > > > inventing false
> > > > > > > > > > concerns about the culture, while you, defending
> > > > > Frank, urge
> > > > > > > > > > Democrats to a new politics which consists of
> > > > > falsely concealing
> > > > > > > > > > the contempt that they actually feel for the
> > > > > American people.
> > > > > > > > > > And why do the Democrats feel that contempt?
> > > > Because
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > American people actually think that things like
> > > > > degraded
> > > > > > > > > > entertainment and homosexual marriage are wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Given the left's fundamental hostility toward
> > > > > America and
> > > > > > > > Americans,
> > > > > > > > > > you liberals/leftists are going to be out of
> > > > power > for
> > > > > > > > generations,
> > > > > > > > > > regardless of how bad the Republicans are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Ken
> > > > > > > > > > To: la
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:04.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Thomas Frank, liberal expert on
> > > > heartland > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, David Frum doesn't like his tone, you don't
> > > > like
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > tone and even I don't much like his tone -- I
> > > > found
> > > > > "One
> > > > > > > > > > Market Under God" almost unreadable -- but I
> > > > don't > see
> > > > > > > > > > how he's wrong on the specifics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Republicans do spend more time campaigning on
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > war and character issues than they do on
> > > > economics.
> > > > > > > > > > That's not a weird theory, that's an observable
> > > > > fact.
> > > > > > > > > > Those dozen or
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > swing-state ballot initiatives that jump-started
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Republican get-out-the-vote efforts -- they
> > > > weren't
> > > > > > > > > > about tax policy. They were about gay marriage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another fact is that Republicans win elections
> > > > doing
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > When Democrats take the offense on economics
> > > > (like > 1992)
> > > > > > > > > > they win. When they take the defense on the
> > > > culture
> > > > > war
> > > > > > > > > > they lose.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He's also right that most voters aren't policy
> > > > wonks
> > > > > > > > > > anyway. A candidate's image as "one of us" or at
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > "a guy who gets it" is worth a lot. Again,
> > > > Clinton > was
> > > > > > > > > > the last Democrat to even try to pull that off.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Not that Frum has the Dems best interest at
> > > > heart, > but
> > > > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > > > right that any serious attempt to return to
> > > > power > has to
> > > > > > > > > > start with an honest look at who votes for the
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > party and why. Making up stories about why we
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > *really* lose is the single most
> > > > counter-productive
> > > > > > > > > > thing we can
> > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Frum's also right that until the Dems learn to
> > > > mask
> > > > > > > > > > their contempt for the people whose votes they
> > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > they'll keep on losing. I still remember a
> > > > couple of
> > > > > > > > > > aging Clintonistas doing election night
> > > > commentary > on
> > > > > > > > > > CNN and saying the
> > > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > "flyover country" and "the cow counties" on the
> > > > air.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > talk like that in public, you're dead no matter
> > > > how
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > your economics are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank, liberal expert on heartland
> > > > > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thomas Frank has made a name for himself with
> > > > > > > > > > his balleyhooed yet phony and ridiculous
> > > > > > > > > > critique of conservatism. His selling point is
> > > > > > > > > > that he, unlike most liberals, understands
> > > > > > > > > > middle American conservatives' real interests
> > > > > > > > > > and values (which,
> > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > says, the conservatives themselves don't
> > > > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > > > > > because of the false consciousness imposed on
> > > > > > > > > > them by conservative mastermind Karl Rove); yet
> > > > > > > > > > every time Frank discusses the conservatives'
> > > > > > > > > > views, he gives the lie to his claim of
> > > > > > > > > > empathy, by cruelly and ignorantly dismissing
> > > > > > > > > > them, just like a liberal. Frank has another
> > > > > > > > > > article out pushing the same tired thesis, and
> > > > > > > > > > David Frum (an occasionally useful writer)
> > > > > > > > > > takes it apart, mainly by quoting long excerpts
> > > > from
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Posted by la at 08:27 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed May 11 08:23:15 2005
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:23:15 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Morality and the neocons
Message-ID: <20050511122315.GA29326@vectra>
References: <20050510225026.52985.qmail@web51505.mail.yahoo.com> <02ea01c555dc$9723d080$d733fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02ea01c555dc$9723d080$d733fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1590 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 783
Lines: 18
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:50:33PM -0400, la wrote:
>
> The neocons don't believe in traditional morality. They believe in
> some kind of bourgeois morality that just happens by itself. .
It always seemed to me they believed in a morality that's generated by
the capitalist system, or by American freedom and opportunity. They look
back at their own family history, which involved arriving here and
landing in a situation with lots of opportunities but demanding
particular habits and attitudes. So they emphasized those habits and
attitudes -- family cohesion, education, hard work, ambition,
persistence, etc. -- and did wonderfully well. What worked for them could
work for everyone. Or at least that seems to be the idea.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 15 07:05:59 2005
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:05:59 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050515110559.GA22028@vectra>
References: <000801c558f0$05a7b740$076010ac@paul> <01a701c5590b$a1d17be0$6347fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <01a701c5590b$a1d17be0$6347fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1600 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 12347
Lines: 236
But what would Nazism have looked like after getting rid of Hitler and a
negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism that gives way to the
stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the highest law,
wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have thought.
jk
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, la wrote:
> As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change Germany into a pastoral =
country. Obviously that was not done. =20
>=20
> But getting back to the alternative scenario, it would have meant that Na=
zism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have been out of power, sort of,=
=20
>=20
> I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm just trying to get a pict=
ure here of whether there was an acceptable way to prevent the Soviets from=
taking over Eastern Europe.
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Paul Gottfried=20
> To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; i=
=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
> Jim: You'll have to send me your address again. I have uncorrected gall=
eys I promised to send to your Brooklyn apartment. PG
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Paul Gottfried=20
> To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; ian@ae=
a.org ; Eugene girin=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
> Those we would have negotiated with were enemies of the Nazis, who did =
not approve of what was done to the Jews, the use of concentration camps, t=
he suspension of a state under law, etc.. In any case the Western Allies sh=
ould have insisted on the right to oversee the transition to an anti-Nazi a=
nd anti-Communist German government. Unconditional surrender combined in 19=
44 with the acceptance of the Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. w=
ould do to Germany what Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would b=
e entirely at our mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which Churc=
hill and FDR both signed off on in 1944, German men would be either sterili=
zed or deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not impose unconditiona=
l surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing the Soviets for not lau=
nching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It also wedged the U.S. into a t=
otal commitment to fight the Germans to the bitter end--without requiring a=
nything from Hitlar's former eastern allies. From what I can tell, this pol=
icy was wildly popular among Western Communists and Communist fellow-travel=
ers, like Harry Dexter White, for obvious reasons. It committed us to a war=
without mercy against the enemies of Stalin--without denying him the right=
to pull out if he wanted. PG
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: la=20
> To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
> Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the allies not get to possess =
the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave a complete history of the inner=
activities of the Third Reich. That also would have remained in German ha=
nds. =20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: la=20
> To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
>=20
> This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to the essentials. =20
>=20
> What we did was a combination of unconditional surrender demand and=
cooperation with Stalin What we should have done was drop the uncondition=
al surrender demand and make a separate piece with Germany and drop our all=
iance with Stalin. This would have made the firebombing of cities unnecess=
ary because that firebombing was only necessary from the point of view of g=
etting an unconditional surrender. (But is that true?) =20
>=20
> Was the unconditional surrender demand a necessary price of our all=
iance with Stalin? If so, why?
>=20
> Beyond what's been already said, can you give me a scenario of what=
a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional surrender?) might have loo=
ked like? Apparently it would have meant that the allies not occupy German=
y? Not occupy and liberate the death camps? Not root out the Nazis? Not =
engage in de-Nazification? Not execute and punish the top Nazis? =20
>=20
> Also, explain how this would have prevented the Soviet occupation o=
f Eastern Europe. I guess we cease materiel aid to Soviets, re-arm the Ger=
mans? =20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Paul Gottfried=20
> To: la ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
> I think I have laid out this scenario more than once. There were =
chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before and during the War, starting i=
n 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals approached the British gover=
nment and stressed how shaky H's position was on the eve of the Munich acco=
rds. In 1944 when German officers and political leaders, like Karl Goerdele=
r, approached the Allies and offered to surrender conditionally, they were =
unceremoniously turned down by Churchill. Lots of details can be found in G=
erhard Ritter's study of the German Resistance, which came from a strong an=
ti-Nazi who was close to the Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never hav=
e insisted on unconditional surrender of the German people, should have avo=
ided fire bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan, which got out to =
everyone in the world, and should have pursued a separate peace with the Ax=
is.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done to assure them that we wo=
uld never have done what we should have done, and sensible commanders, like=
Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled by how politically stupid the U.S. gove=
rnment showed itself in dealing with Stalin. That we continued to suck up t=
o Stalin while the German army was on the run in the East was sheer idiocy.=
By the time of Yalta, it may have been too late to get the Soviet butchers=
out of Eastern and Central Europe but even after Roosevelt continued to mi=
srepresent the Soviet government to his countrymen. When I was first expose=
d to Revisionist history of the Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our govern=
ment had spent year appeasing Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing=
over escaped Soviet civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By th=
e way, I hold the clueless Truman less responsible for this than the Brits,=
particularly Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still floored by the=
chutpah of the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as FDR, screaming=
about twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of their appeasement =
became clear. PG=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: la=20
> To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
> I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and Paul may have respo=
nded to me privately and briefly, but I would like to see a full scenario l=
aid out in which FDR does the right thing vis a vis Europe and Stalin. How=
should he have proceeded? An entire scenario is needed to make this propo=
sition intelligible. Otherwise it's just a gripe (I've made the gripe many=
times myself) that he was too accepting of Uncle Joe. Unless there really=
was a practical alternative, our criticism of FDR falls down.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Paul Gottfried=20
> To: la ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca=
=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
> The speech given by Bush in Latvia contained a questionable p=
arallel but actually understated the evil deeds of the Roosevelt administra=
tion. Both FDR and Churchill lied to their people down to 1945 about the So=
viet regime, that is, they lied even after Nazi Germany represented a real =
threat to us and after the Soviets had gone on the rampage in Eastern Europ=
e and had become the main foreign policy threat. I have seen nothing in FDR=
's case to show that he ever awoke from his delusions about the Soviets or =
was ever willing to moderate his desire to crush the Axis totally to notice=
geopolitical reality.In his irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equ=
alled by the Republican Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly w=
ith FDR's war policy than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was always=
too late in the War, since he had no plans that he was willing to share ab=
out containing Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about Stalin a=
s a great democrat. PG
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: la=20
> To: Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca=20
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> President Bush said in his speech in Latvia on May 5:=20
>=20
> The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition o=
f Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.=20
>=20
> The parallel between Yalta and Munich is arguable, since Ch=
amberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland, while Ro=
osevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of Eastern Europe (though it'=
s not clear to me that FDR by that point had any realistic choice in the ma=
tter). However, Bush's parallel between Yalta and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pa=
ct is problematic. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact didn't simply involve one po=
wer giving the go-ahead to another power to occupy some country; it involve=
d the two powers' mutual carving up of that country. Stalin said Hitler cou=
ld take western Poland, and Hitler said Stalin could take eastern Poland. I=
t was an agreement between two totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and d=
estroy a third country. No matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in i=
ts results Roosevelt's deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a m=
oral equivalence between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray Americ=
a as the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is utterly =
wrong and an insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a d___ ca=
re about such piddling details of historical truth. And he couldn't care le=
ss about showing a decent respect for his own country and for former U.S. p=
residents when he is speaking as U.S. president in a foreign land. No. The =
main thing for Bush is to place himself, the avatar of pure democracy, on a=
moral plane above everyone and everything in the American past.
>=20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 15 09:25:20 2005
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:25:20 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050515132520.GA22330@vectra>
References: <000801c558f0$05a7b740$076010ac@paul> <01a701c5590b$a1d17be0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515110559.GA22028@vectra> <028901c55949$ba7a7780$6347fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <028901c55949$ba7a7780$6347fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1601 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 14161
Lines: 289
How many actual Nazis are there? At a distance it seems that it's very
easy to qualify as what's called a neonazi but there don't seem to be
many even of them. There are juvenile delinquents who affect Nazi
mannerisms to make themselves objectionable but that doesn't seem
seriously political.
Nazism seems to me like a very odd movement that depended on special
conditions, a gifted leader and luck. Willful irrationality and dramatic
successes gave it dynamism but I don't see that it could have had much
staying power. There wasn't a serious ideology there. If the whole idea
is "hail victory" and the will of Adolf Hitler as the supreme overriding
life-and-death standard then it's not clear what's there that could
survive a serious reverse like the negotiated loss of a major war with
millions dead.
I seem to recall that Borges had a theory that Hitler wanted to go down
to flaming defeat. That seems right to me, because it's more grandiose
than actually winning. Comedies aren't as impressive as tragedies. A
negotiated disadvantageous peace is even less impressive.
jk
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, la wrote:
> It would have survived as a group and as an ideology. Even following
> the unconditional surrender of Germany, there is a continuing movement
> of people today still hankering after Nazism. Imagine if the Nazis had
> not been uprooted. They would have remained an active element in German
> and European politics.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:05.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>
>
> But what would Nazism have looked like after getting rid of Hitler and a
> negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism that gives way to the
> stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the highest law,
> wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have thought.
>
> jk
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, la wrote:
> > As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change Germany into a
> pastoral country. Obviously that was not done.
> >
> > But getting back to the alternative scenario, it would have meant that
> Nazism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have been out of power, sort
> of,
> >
> > I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm just trying to get a
> picture here of whether there was an acceptable way to prevent the
> Soviets from taking over Eastern Europe.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Gottfried
> > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; Ian
>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> > Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > Jim: You'll have to send me your address again. I have uncorrected
> galleys I promised to send to your Brooklyn apartment. PG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Gottfried
> > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> ian@aea.org ; Eugene girin
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > Those we would have negotiated with were enemies of the Nazis, who
> did not approve of what was done to the Jews, the use of concentration
> camps, the suspension of a state under law, etc.. In any case the
> Western Allies should have insisted on the right to oversee the
> transition to an anti-Nazi and anti-Communist German government.
> Unconditional surrender combined in 1944 with the acceptance of the
> Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. would do to Germany what
> Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would be entirely at our
> mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which Churchill and FDR
> both signed off on in 1944, German men would be either sterilized or
> deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not impose unconditional
> surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing the Soviets for not
> launching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It also wedged the U.S.
> into a total commitment to fight the Germans to the bitter end--without
> requiring anything from Hitlar's former eastern allies. From what I can
> tell, this policy was wildly popular among Western Communists and
> Communist fellow-travelers, like Harry Dexter White, for obvious
> reasons. It committed us to a war without mercy against the enemies of
> Stalin--without denying him the right to pull out if he wanted. PG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: la
> > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the allies not get to
> possess the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave a complete history
> of the inner activities of the Third Reich. That also would have
> remained in German hands.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: la
> > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> >
> > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to the essentials.
> >
> > What we did was a combination of unconditional surrender demand
> and cooperation with Stalin What we should have done was drop the
> unconditional surrender demand and make a separate piece with Germany
> and drop our alliance with Stalin. This would have made the firebombing
> of cities unnecessary because that firebombing was only necessary from
> the point of view of getting an unconditional surrender. (But is that
> true?)
> >
> > Was the unconditional surrender demand a necessary price of our
> alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> >
> > Beyond what's been already said, can you give me a scenario of
> what a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional surrender?) might
> have looked like? Apparently it would have meant that the allies not
> occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death camps? Not root out
> the Nazis? Not engage in de-Nazification? Not execute and punish the
> top Nazis?
> >
> > Also, explain how this would have prevented the Soviet
> occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we cease materiel aid to Soviets,
> re-arm the Germans?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Gottfried
> > To: la ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > I think I have laid out this scenario more than once. There
> were chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before and during the War,
> starting in 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals approached the
> British government and stressed how shaky H's position was on the eve of
> the Munich accords. In 1944 when German officers and political leaders,
> like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies and offered to surrender
> conditionally, they were unceremoniously turned down by Churchill. Lots
> of details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study of the German
> Resistance, which came from a strong anti-Nazi who was close to the
> Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never have insisted on
> unconditional surrender of the German people, should have avoided fire
> bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan, which got out to
> everyone in the world, and should have pursued a separate peace with the
> Axis.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done to assure them that
> we would never have done what we should have done, and sensible
> commanders, like Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled by how politically
> stupid the U.S. government showed itself in dealing with Stalin. That we
> continued to suck up to Stalin while the German army was on the run in
> the East was sheer idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it may have been too
> late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and Central Europe but
> even after Roosevelt continued to misrepresent the Soviet government to
> his countrymen. When I was first exposed to Revisionist history of the
> Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our government had spent year appeasing
> Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing over escaped Soviet
> civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By the way, I hold the
> clueless Truman less responsible for this than the Brits, particularly
> Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still floored by the chutpah of
> the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as FDR, screaming about
> twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of their appeasement
> became clear. PG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: la
> > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and Paul may have
> responded to me privately and briefly, but I would like to see a full
> scenario laid out in which FDR does the right thing vis a vis Europe and
> Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire scenario is needed to
> make this proposition intelligible. Otherwise it's just a gripe (I've
> made the gripe many times myself) that he was too accepting of Uncle
> Joe. Unless there really was a practical alternative, our criticism of
> FDR falls down.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Gottfried
> > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > The speech given by Bush in Latvia contained a
> questionable parallel but actually understated the evil deeds of the
> Roosevelt administration. Both FDR and Churchill lied to their people
> down to 1945 about the Soviet regime, that is, they lied even after Nazi
> Germany represented a real threat to us and after the Soviets had gone
> on the rampage in Eastern Europe and had become the main foreign policy
> threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to show that he ever awoke
> from his delusions about the Soviets or was ever willing to moderate his
> desire to crush the Axis totally to notice geopolitical reality.In his
> irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equalled by the Republican
> Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly with FDR's war policy
> than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was always too late in the
> War, since he had no plans that he was willing to share about containing
> Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about Stalin as a great
> democrat. PG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: la
> > To: Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > President Bush said in his speech in Latvia on May 5:
> >
> > The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust
> tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> >
> > The parallel between Yalta and Munich is arguable, since
> Chamberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland,
> while Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of Eastern Europe
> (though it's not clear to me that FDR by that point had any realistic
> choice in the matter). However, Bush's parallel between Yalta and the
> Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> didn't simply involve one power giving the go-ahead to another power to
> occupy some country; it involved the two powers' mutual carving up of
> that country. Stalin said Hitler could take western Poland, and Hitler
> said Stalin could take eastern Poland. It was an agreement between two
> totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a third country. No
> matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in its results Roosevelt's
> deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a moral equivalence
> between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray America as the moral
> equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is utterly wrong and an
> insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a d___ care about
> such piddling details of historical truth. And he couldn't care less
> about showing a decent respect for his own country and for former U.S.
> presidents when he is speaking as U.S. president in a foreign land. No.
> The main thing for Bush is to place himself, the avatar of pure
> democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and everything in the
> American past.
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 15 10:53:14 2005
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:53:14 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050515145314.GA23546@vectra>
References: <20050515052450.73528.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <02cb01c5595c$2d2fd560$6347fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02cb01c5595c$2d2fd560$6347fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1602 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 11480
Lines: 272
The point seems to be that by the time a deal become conceivable whereby
some group of disaffected well-placed Germans worried about their
country's future got rid of Hitler Soviet occupation of the territories
they did in fact occupy was a done deal.
I don't know enough about the facts to say. It does seem in general that
less war is better than more war to get rid of the Hitlerian regime,
especially if less war would have gotten rid of Hitler faster, but
saying that doesn't resolve the "betrayal at Yalta" issue.
jk
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:41:24AM -0400, la wrote:
> Ron is making a case that nothing we could have done could have saved
> central Europe from Commie domination.
>
> What is left then of the indictment of FDR, which I have made myself?
> Sure, he was scandolously, criminally naive about the nature of the
> USSR. But let's suppose he had not been so naive. Let's say he had
> been, uh, Winston Churchill. What could he have actually done
> differently?
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Lewenberg"
> To: "la"; "Paul Gottfried"
> ; "Eugene Girin" ;
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:24.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>
>
> > Who could we have made peace with?
> > The only serious group of plotters were the Von
> > Stauffenberg's group. Perhaps if they had killed
> > Hitler ( they were close), arrested the top Nazis, and
> > given the Reich over to Rommel, we could have made a
> > seperate peace.
> >
> > No peace with Nazis would have lasted.
> >
> > Even if we had a peace in July 1944, could Germany
> > have either defeater the USSR or forced a ceasefire? I
> > don't believe so. After the Battle of Kursk, the
> > Germans were in continuous retreat, trading space for
> > time. The Soviets had roughly equivalent weapons
> > (including the best tanks of the war, the T34-85mm and
> > the JSII) and 15 million trooops.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > PS. The British firebombed Germnay, not the US. We
> > only firebombed Japan.
> > The doctrine of the Eighth Airforce in WWII was
> > daylight "precision" bombing.
> > The RAF practiced nightbombing.
> >
> >
> > --- la wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to the
> > > essentials.
> > >
> > > What we did was a combination of unconditional
> > > surrender demand and cooperation with Stalin What
> > > we should have done was drop the unconditional
> > > surrender demand and make a separate piece with
> > > Germany and drop our alliance with Stalin. This
> > > would have made the firebombing of cities
> > > unnecessary because that firebombing was only
> > > necessary from the point of view of getting an
> > > unconditional surrender. (But is that true?)
> > >
> > > Was the unconditional surrender demand a necessary
> > > price of our alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> > >
> > > Beyond what's been already said, can you give me a
> > > scenario of what a non-unconditional surrender (or a
> > > conditional surrender?) might have looked like?
> > > Apparently it would have meant that the allies not
> > > occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death
> > > camps? Not root out the Nazis? Not engage in
> > > de-Nazification? Not execute and punish the top
> > > Nazis?
> > >
> > > Also, explain how this would have prevented the
> > > Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we
> > > cease materiel aid to Soviets, re-arm the Germans?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I have laid out this scenario more than
> > > once. There were chances to push out Hitler
> > > repeatedly before and during the War, starting in
> > > 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals
> > > approached the British government and stressed how
> > > shaky H's position was on the eve of the Munich
> > > accords. In 1944 when German officers and political
> > > leaders, like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies
> > > and offered to surrender conditionally, they were
> > > unceremoniously turned down by Churchill. Lots of
> > > details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study of
> > > the German Resistance, which came from a strong
> > > anti-Nazi who was close to the Resistance Movement.
> > > The U.S. should never have insisted on unconditional
> > > surrender of the German people, should have avoided
> > > fire bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan,
> > > which got out to everyone in the world, and should
> > > have pursued a separate peace with the Axis.Most of
> > > our kissing up to the Soviets was done to assure
> > > them that we would never have done what we should
> > > have done, and sensible commanders, like Patton and
> > > Wedemayr, were appalled by how politically stupid
> > > the U.S. government showed itself in dealing with
> > > Stalin. That we continued to suck up to Stalin while
> > > the German army was on the run in the East was sheer
> > > idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it may have been too
> > > late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and
> > > Central Europe but even after Roosevelt continued to
> > > misrepresent the Soviet government to his
> > > countrymen. When I was first exposed to Revisionist
> > > history of the Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our
> > > government had spent year appeasing Soviet butchers,
> > > even to the point of handing over escaped Soviet
> > > civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By
> > > the way, I hold the clueless Truman less responsible
> > > for this than the Brits, particularly Eden and
> > > Churchill, and as you know I am still floored by the
> > > chutpah of the Republicans, who were every bit
> > > complicit as FDR, screaming about twenty years of
> > > treason as soon as the effects of their appeasement
> > > became clear. PG
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and Paul
> > > may have responded to me privately and briefly, but
> > > I would like to see a full scenario laid out in
> > > which FDR does the right thing vis a vis Europe and
> > > Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire
> > > scenario is needed to make this proposition
> > > intelligible. Otherwise it's just a gripe (I've
> > > made the gripe many times myself) that he was too
> > > accepting of Uncle Joe. Unless there really was a
> > > practical alternative, our criticism of FDR falls
> > > down.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > Hitler-Stalin pact
> > >
> > >
> > > The speech given by Bush in Latvia contained a
> > > questionable parallel but actually understated the
> > > evil deeds of the Roosevelt administration. Both FDR
> > > and Churchill lied to their people down to 1945
> > > about the Soviet regime, that is, they lied even
> > > after Nazi Germany represented a real threat to us
> > > and after the Soviets had gone on the rampage in
> > > Eastern Europe and had become the main foreign
> > > policy threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to
> > > show that he ever awoke from his delusions about the
> > > Soviets or was ever willing to moderate his desire
> > > to crush the Axis totally to notice geopolitical
> > > reality.In his irresponsible, stupid behavior he was
> > > only equalled by the Republican Party congressmen,
> > > who went along more sheepishly with FDR's war policy
> > > than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was
> > > always too late in the War, since he had no plans
> > > that he was willing to share about containing Soviet
> > > imperialism and could never stop lying about Stalin
> > > as a great democrat. PG
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > President Bush said in his speech in Latvia
> > > on May 5:
> > >
> > > The agreement at Yalta followed in the
> > > unjust tradition of Munich and the
> > > Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> > >
> > > The parallel between Yalta and Munich is
> > > arguable, since Chamberlain at Munich accepted
> > > Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland, while
> > > Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of
> > > Eastern Europe (though it's not clear to me that FDR
> > > by that point had any realistic choice in the
> > > matter). However, Bush's parallel between Yalta and
> > > the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The
> > > Molotov-Ribbentrop pact didn't simply involve one
> > > power giving the go-ahead to another power to occupy
> > > some country; it involved the two powers' mutual
> > > carving up of that country. Stalin said Hitler could
> > > take western Poland, and Hitler said Stalin could
> > > take eastern Poland. It was an agreement between two
> > > totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a
> > > third country. No matter how foolish, benighted, and
> > > horrible in its results Roosevelt's deal with Stalin
> > > may have been, for Bush to draw a moral equivalence
> > > between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray
> > > America as the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and
> > > Soviet Russia. It is utterly wrong and an insult to
> > > our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a d___
> > > care about such piddling details of historical
> > > truth. And he couldn't care less about showing a
> > > decent respect for his own country and for former
> > > U.S. presidents when he is speaking as U.S.
> > > president in a foreign land. No. The main thing for
> > > Bush is to place himself, the avatar of pure
> > > democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and
> > > everything in the American past.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 15 11:32:16 2005
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:32:16 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050515153216.GA23677@vectra>
References: <000801c558f0$05a7b740$076010ac@paul> <01a701c5590b$a1d17be0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515110559.GA22028@vectra> <028901c55949$ba7a7780$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515132520.GA22330@vectra> <02d201c5595e$18c097c0$6347fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02d201c5595e$18c097c0$6347fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1603 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 17924
Lines: 438
It seems to me a lot of the issue is whether Naziism as a specific
movement had an enduring identity and solidity and staying power over
against other forms that the collapse of political life into irrational
fanaticism can have such that it's a major continuing danger and it was
worth a great many lives and much destruction to nail it absolutely so
that forever thereafter everybody would know to avoid it and anything
connected to it or reminiscent of it.
My own inclination is to say that Naziism isn't specially reproducible,
it was a one-time thing, and that assuming Hitler is out of the picture
an emphasis on root-and-branch elimination of that particular thing is
more likely to act as a distraction from other dangers. Part of the
reason for viewing things that way is that Naziism seems to me unstable
as a basis for government. It needs constant extreme struggle, always
something bigger and more dramatic, and you can't keep that up.
jk
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:55:04AM -0400, la wrote:
> I'm not saying that a less-then-unconditional surrender of Germany would
> not have been a defeat for the Nazis. (That's four negatives in one
> sentence, a record.) But it also would have fallen short of bringing
> Nazi Germany into our power, with the ability to arrest and kill the top
> Nazis, de-Nazify the country, liberate and document the death camps,
> seize the vast stores of Nazi documents which proved to the world what
> the Hitler regime really did and what it really was, and overall truly
> DEFEAT Nazi Germany. Now, I'm not saying that that is necessarily
> dispositive. If one could make an argument for an alternative strategy
> by which the Communist conquest of Central Europe could have been
> avoided by means of a less than German surrender, I think one would have
> to consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look realistically and
> honestly at what the costs of this negotiated surrender would have been.
>
> Of course, for those, such as Buchanan, who always diminish the evil of
> Nazism, such considerations are irrelevant. .
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:25.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>
>
> > How many actual Nazis are there? At a distance it seems that it's very
> > easy to qualify as what's called a neonazi but there don't seem to be
> > many even of them. There are juvenile delinquents who affect Nazi
> > mannerisms to make themselves objectionable but that doesn't seem
> > seriously political.
> >
> > Nazism seems to me like a very odd movement that depended on special
> > conditions, a gifted leader and luck. Willful irrationality and
> dramatic
> > successes gave it dynamism but I don't see that it could have had much
> > staying power. There wasn't a serious ideology there. If the whole
> idea
> > is "hail victory" and the will of Adolf Hitler as the supreme
> overriding
> > life-and-death standard then it's not clear what's there that could
> > survive a serious reverse like the negotiated loss of a major war with
> > millions dead.
> >
> > I seem to recall that Borges had a theory that Hitler wanted to go
> down
> > to flaming defeat. That seems right to me, because it's more grandiose
> > than actually winning. Comedies aren't as impressive as tragedies. A
> > negotiated disadvantageous peace is even less impressive.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > It would have survived as a group and as an ideology. Even
> following
> > > the unconditional surrender of Germany, there is a continuing
> movement
> > > of people today still hankering after Nazism. Imagine if the Nazis
> had
> > > not been uprooted. They would have remained an active element in
> German
> > > and European politics.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:05.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > >
> > >
> > > But what would Nazism have looked like after getting rid of Hitler
> and a
> > > negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism that gives way to
> the
> > > stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the highest law,
> > > wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have thought.
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change Germany into a
> > > pastoral country. Obviously that was not done.
> > > >
> > > > But getting back to the alternative scenario, it would have meant
> that
> > > Nazism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have been out of power,
> sort
> > > of,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm just trying to get
> a
> > > picture here of whether there was an acceptable way to prevent the
> > > Soviets from taking over Eastern Europe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; Ian
> > >
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jim: You'll have to send me your address again. I have
> uncorrected
> > > galleys I promised to send to your Brooklyn apartment. PG
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > ian@aea.org ; Eugene girin
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Those we would have negotiated with were enemies of the Nazis,
> who
> > > did not approve of what was done to the Jews, the use of
> concentration
> > > camps, the suspension of a state under law, etc.. In any case the
> > > Western Allies should have insisted on the right to oversee the
> > > transition to an anti-Nazi and anti-Communist German government.
> > > Unconditional surrender combined in 1944 with the acceptance of the
> > > Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. would do to Germany what
> > > Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would be entirely at our
> > > mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which Churchill and
> FDR
> > > both signed off on in 1944, German men would be either sterilized or
> > > deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not impose
> unconditional
> > > surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing the Soviets for
> not
> > > launching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It also wedged the
> U.S.
> > > into a total commitment to fight the Germans to the bitter
> end--without
> > > requiring anything from Hitlar's former eastern allies. From what I
> can
> > > tell, this policy was wildly popular among Western Communists and
> > > Communist fellow-travelers, like Harry Dexter White, for obvious
> > > reasons. It committed us to a war without mercy against the enemies
> of
> > > Stalin--without denying him the right to pull out if he wanted. PG
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: la
> > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the allies not get to
> > > possess the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave a complete
> history
> > > of the inner activities of the Third Reich. That also would have
> > > remained in German hands.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: la
> > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to the
> essentials.
> > > >
> > > > What we did was a combination of unconditional surrender
> demand
> > > and cooperation with Stalin What we should have done was drop the
> > > unconditional surrender demand and make a separate piece with
> Germany
> > > and drop our alliance with Stalin. This would have made the
> firebombing
> > > of cities unnecessary because that firebombing was only necessary
> from
> > > the point of view of getting an unconditional surrender. (But is
> that
> > > true?)
> > > >
> > > > Was the unconditional surrender demand a necessary price of
> our
> > > alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> > > >
> > > > Beyond what's been already said, can you give me a scenario
> of
> > > what a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional surrender?)
> might
> > > have looked like? Apparently it would have meant that the allies
> not
> > > occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death camps? Not root
> out
> > > the Nazis? Not engage in de-Nazification? Not execute and punish
> the
> > > top Nazis?
> > > >
> > > > Also, explain how this would have prevented the Soviet
> > > occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we cease materiel aid to
> Soviets,
> > > re-arm the Germans?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think I have laid out this scenario more than once.
> There
> > > were chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before and during the
> War,
> > > starting in 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals approached
> the
> > > British government and stressed how shaky H's position was on the
> eve of
> > > the Munich accords. In 1944 when German officers and political
> leaders,
> > > like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies and offered to surrender
> > > conditionally, they were unceremoniously turned down by Churchill.
> Lots
> > > of details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study of the German
> > > Resistance, which came from a strong anti-Nazi who was close to the
> > > Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never have insisted on
> > > unconditional surrender of the German people, should have avoided
> fire
> > > bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan, which got out to
> > > everyone in the world, and should have pursued a separate peace with
> the
> > > Axis.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done to assure them
> that
> > > we would never have done what we should have done, and sensible
> > > commanders, like Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled by how
> politically
> > > stupid the U.S. government showed itself in dealing with Stalin.
> That we
> > > continued to suck up to Stalin while the German army was on the run
> in
> > > the East was sheer idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it may have been
> too
> > > late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and Central Europe
> but
> > > even after Roosevelt continued to misrepresent the Soviet government
> to
> > > his countrymen. When I was first exposed to Revisionist history of
> the
> > > Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our government had spent year
> appeasing
> > > Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing over escaped Soviet
> > > civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By the way, I hold
> the
> > > clueless Truman less responsible for this than the Brits,
> particularly
> > > Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still floored by the
> chutpah of
> > > the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as FDR, screaming
> about
> > > twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of their appeasement
> > > became clear. PG
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: la
> > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and Paul may
> have
> > > responded to me privately and briefly, but I would like to see a
> full
> > > scenario laid out in which FDR does the right thing vis a vis Europe
> and
> > > Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire scenario is needed
> to
> > > make this proposition intelligible. Otherwise it's just a gripe
> (I've
> > > made the gripe many times myself) that he was too accepting of Uncle
> > > Joe. Unless there really was a practical alternative, our criticism
> of
> > > FDR falls down.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The speech given by Bush in Latvia contained a
> > > questionable parallel but actually understated the evil deeds of the
> > > Roosevelt administration. Both FDR and Churchill lied to their
> people
> > > down to 1945 about the Soviet regime, that is, they lied even after
> Nazi
> > > Germany represented a real threat to us and after the Soviets had
> gone
> > > on the rampage in Eastern Europe and had become the main foreign
> policy
> > > threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to show that he ever awoke
> > > from his delusions about the Soviets or was ever willing to moderate
> his
> > > desire to crush the Axis totally to notice geopolitical reality.In
> his
> > > irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equalled by the
> Republican
> > > Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly with FDR's war
> policy
> > > than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was always too late in
> the
> > > War, since he had no plans that he was willing to share about
> containing
> > > Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about Stalin as a
> great
> > > democrat. PG
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: la
> > > > To: Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > President Bush said in his speech in Latvia on May
> 5:
> > > >
> > > > The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust
> > > tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> > > >
> > > > The parallel between Yalta and Munich is arguable,
> since
> > > Chamberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland,
> > > while Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of Eastern
> Europe
> > > (though it's not clear to me that FDR by that point had any
> realistic
> > > choice in the matter). However, Bush's parallel between Yalta and
> the
> > > Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> > > didn't simply involve one power giving the go-ahead to another power
> to
> > > occupy some country; it involved the two powers' mutual carving up
> of
> > > that country. Stalin said Hitler could take western Poland, and
> Hitler
> > > said Stalin could take eastern Poland. It was an agreement between
> two
> > > totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a third country.
> No
> > > matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in its results
> Roosevelt's
> > > deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a moral equivalence
> > > between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray America as the
> moral
> > > equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is utterly wrong
> and an
> > > insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a d___ care
> about
> > > such piddling details of historical truth. And he couldn't care less
> > > about showing a decent respect for his own country and for former
> U.S.
> > > presidents when he is speaking as U.S. president in a foreign land.
> No.
> > > The main thing for Bush is to place himself, the avatar of pure
> > > democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and everything in the
> > > American past.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 15 12:13:12 2005
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:13:12 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050515161312.GB23677@vectra>
References: <000801c558f0$05a7b740$076010ac@paul> <01a701c5590b$a1d17be0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515110559.GA22028@vectra> <028901c55949$ba7a7780$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515132520.GA22330@vectra> <02d201c5595e$18c097c0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515153216.GA23677@vectra> <030a01c55966$516c1060$6347fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <030a01c55966$516c1060$6347fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1604 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 21674
Lines: 586
If it's not reproducible then once it's lost it's gone. What more is
needed as a practical matter?
The issue is whether Naziism is a bizarre catastrophe that because it's
a bizarre catastrophe has to be put down but won't come back or whether
it's a solid thing that's deeply part of European culture, the German
people or whatever, so that we have to give up any chance of stopping
the war sooner so we can retrain all the Germans and turn them into
something else. Larry seems to be saying that only an abstract
intellectual theoretician could possibly believe the former.
jk
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 11:53:55AM -0400, la wrote:
> Very interesting point, but not entirely relevant. The concern that
> I've given voice to here has not been the reproducibility of Nazism, but
> the defeat, extirpation, and exposure of Nazism.
>
> Jim almost acts as if Nazism wasn't a problem, since Nazism didn't have
> a high-level, coherent articulation as a belief. This is to approach
> the issue in too abstract a manner. Notwithstanding the limitations of
> Nazism as an ideology, the Nazis, driven by that ideology, took over and
> mobilized an entire country and launched the greatest and most
> destructive war in history. Jim's expectation that the allies would not
> want to make sure that the beast that had destroyed the world was not
> truly defeated, dead, uprooted, and destroyed is the kind of thing that
> only an intellectual could say.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:32.a.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>
>
> > It seems to me a lot of the issue is whether Naziism as a specific
> > movement had an enduring identity and solidity and staying power over
> > against other forms that the collapse of political life into
> irrational
> > fanaticism can have such that it's a major continuing danger and it
> was
> > worth a great many lives and much destruction to nail it absolutely so
> > that forever thereafter everybody would know to avoid it and anything
> > connected to it or reminiscent of it.
> >
> > My own inclination is to say that Naziism isn't specially
> reproducible,
> > it was a one-time thing, and that assuming Hitler is out of the
> picture
> > an emphasis on root-and-branch elimination of that particular thing is
> > more likely to act as a distraction from other dangers. Part of the
> > reason for viewing things that way is that Naziism seems to me
> unstable
> > as a basis for government. It needs constant extreme struggle, always
> > something bigger and more dramatic, and you can't keep that up.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:55:04AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > I'm not saying that a less-then-unconditional surrender of Germany
> would
> > > not have been a defeat for the Nazis. (That's four negatives in one
> > > sentence, a record.) But it also would have fallen short of
> bringing
> > > Nazi Germany into our power, with the ability to arrest and kill the
> top
> > > Nazis, de-Nazify the country, liberate and document the death camps,
> > > seize the vast stores of Nazi documents which proved to the world
> what
> > > the Hitler regime really did and what it really was, and overall
> truly
> > > DEFEAT Nazi Germany. Now, I'm not saying that that is necessarily
> > > dispositive. If one could make an argument for an alternative
> strategy
> > > by which the Communist conquest of Central Europe could have been
> > > avoided by means of a less than German surrender, I think one would
> have
> > > to consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look realistically and
> > > honestly at what the costs of this negotiated surrender would have
> been.
> > >
> > > Of course, for those, such as Buchanan, who always diminish the evil
> of
> > > Nazism, such considerations are irrelevant. .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:25.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > >
> > >
> > > > How many actual Nazis are there? At a distance it seems that it's
> very
> > > > easy to qualify as what's called a neonazi but there don't seem to
> be
> > > > many even of them. There are juvenile delinquents who affect Nazi
> > > > mannerisms to make themselves objectionable but that doesn't seem
> > > > seriously political.
> > > >
> > > > Nazism seems to me like a very odd movement that depended on
> special
> > > > conditions, a gifted leader and luck. Willful irrationality and
> > > dramatic
> > > > successes gave it dynamism but I don't see that it could have had
> much
> > > > staying power. There wasn't a serious ideology there. If the whole
> > > idea
> > > > is "hail victory" and the will of Adolf Hitler as the supreme
> > > overriding
> > > > life-and-death standard then it's not clear what's there that
> could
> > > > survive a serious reverse like the negotiated loss of a major war
> with
> > > > millions dead.
> > > >
> > > > I seem to recall that Borges had a theory that Hitler wanted to go
> > > down
> > > > to flaming defeat. That seems right to me, because it's more
> grandiose
> > > > than actually winning. Comedies aren't as impressive as tragedies.
> A
> > > > negotiated disadvantageous peace is even less impressive.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > > It would have survived as a group and as an ideology. Even
> > > following
> > > > > the unconditional surrender of Germany, there is a continuing
> > > movement
> > > > > of people today still hankering after Nazism. Imagine if the
> Nazis
> > > had
> > > > > not been uprooted. They would have remained an active element
> in
> > > German
> > > > > and European politics.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:05.a.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But what would Nazism have looked like after getting rid of
> Hitler
> > > and a
> > > > > negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism that gives way
> to
> > > the
> > > > > stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the highest
> law,
> > > > > wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > jk
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > > > As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change Germany into
> a
> > > > > pastoral country. Obviously that was not done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But getting back to the alternative scenario, it would have
> meant
> > > that
> > > > > Nazism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have been out of
> power,
> > > sort
> > > > > of,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm just trying to
> get
> > > a
> > > > > picture here of whether there was an acceptable way to prevent
> the
> > > > > Soviets from taking over Eastern Europe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; Ian
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim: You'll have to send me your address again. I have
> > > uncorrected
> > > > > galleys I promised to send to your Brooklyn apartment. PG
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > > > ian@aea.org ; Eugene girin
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those we would have negotiated with were enemies of the
> Nazis,
> > > who
> > > > > did not approve of what was done to the Jews, the use of
> > > concentration
> > > > > camps, the suspension of a state under law, etc.. In any case
> the
> > > > > Western Allies should have insisted on the right to oversee the
> > > > > transition to an anti-Nazi and anti-Communist German government.
> > > > > Unconditional surrender combined in 1944 with the acceptance of
> the
> > > > > Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. would do to Germany
> what
> > > > > Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would be entirely at
> our
> > > > > mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which Churchill
> and
> > > FDR
> > > > > both signed off on in 1944, German men would be either
> sterilized or
> > > > > deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not impose
> > > unconditional
> > > > > surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing the Soviets
> for
> > > not
> > > > > launching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It also wedged the
> > > U.S.
> > > > > into a total commitment to fight the Germans to the bitter
> > > end--without
> > > > > requiring anything from Hitlar's former eastern allies. From
> what I
> > > can
> > > > > tell, this policy was wildly popular among Western Communists
> and
> > > > > Communist fellow-travelers, like Harry Dexter White, for obvious
> > > > > reasons. It committed us to a war without mercy against the
> enemies
> > > of
> > > > > Stalin--without denying him the right to pull out if he wanted.
> PG
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the allies not get
> to
> > > > > possess the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave a complete
> > > history
> > > > > of the inner activities of the Third Reich. That also would
> have
> > > > > remained in German hands.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to the
> > > essentials.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What we did was a combination of unconditional surrender
> > > demand
> > > > > and cooperation with Stalin What we should have done was drop
> the
> > > > > unconditional surrender demand and make a separate piece with
> > > Germany
> > > > > and drop our alliance with Stalin. This would have made the
> > > firebombing
> > > > > of cities unnecessary because that firebombing was only
> necessary
> > > from
> > > > > the point of view of getting an unconditional surrender. (But
> is
> > > that
> > > > > true?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Was the unconditional surrender demand a necessary price
> of
> > > our
> > > > > alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Beyond what's been already said, can you give me a
> scenario
> > > of
> > > > > what a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional surrender?)
> > > might
> > > > > have looked like? Apparently it would have meant that the
> allies
> > > not
> > > > > occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death camps? Not
> root
> > > out
> > > > > the Nazis? Not engage in de-Nazification? Not execute and
> punish
> > > the
> > > > > top Nazis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, explain how this would have prevented the Soviet
> > > > > occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we cease materiel aid to
> > > Soviets,
> > > > > re-arm the Germans?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I have laid out this scenario more than once.
> > > There
> > > > > were chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before and during the
> > > War,
> > > > > starting in 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals
> approached
> > > the
> > > > > British government and stressed how shaky H's position was on
> the
> > > eve of
> > > > > the Munich accords. In 1944 when German officers and political
> > > leaders,
> > > > > like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies and offered to
> surrender
> > > > > conditionally, they were unceremoniously turned down by
> Churchill.
> > > Lots
> > > > > of details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study of the German
> > > > > Resistance, which came from a strong anti-Nazi who was close to
> the
> > > > > Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never have insisted on
> > > > > unconditional surrender of the German people, should have
> avoided
> > > fire
> > > > > bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan, which got out to
> > > > > everyone in the world, and should have pursued a separate peace
> with
> > > the
> > > > > Axis.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done to assure
> them
> > > that
> > > > > we would never have done what we should have done, and sensible
> > > > > commanders, like Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled by how
> > > politically
> > > > > stupid the U.S. government showed itself in dealing with Stalin.
> > > That we
> > > > > continued to suck up to Stalin while the German army was on the
> run
> > > in
> > > > > the East was sheer idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it may have
> been
> > > too
> > > > > late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and Central
> Europe
> > > but
> > > > > even after Roosevelt continued to misrepresent the Soviet
> government
> > > to
> > > > > his countrymen. When I was first exposed to Revisionist history
> of
> > > the
> > > > > Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our government had spent year
> > > appeasing
> > > > > Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing over escaped
> Soviet
> > > > > civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By the way, I
> hold
> > > the
> > > > > clueless Truman less responsible for this than the Brits,
> > > particularly
> > > > > Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still floored by the
> > > chutpah of
> > > > > the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as FDR, screaming
> > > about
> > > > > twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of their
> appeasement
> > > > > became clear. PG
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and Paul may
> > > have
> > > > > responded to me privately and briefly, but I would like to see a
> > > full
> > > > > scenario laid out in which FDR does the right thing vis a vis
> Europe
> > > and
> > > > > Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire scenario is
> needed
> > > to
> > > > > make this proposition intelligible. Otherwise it's just a gripe
> > > (I've
> > > > > made the gripe many times myself) that he was too accepting of
> Uncle
> > > > > Joe. Unless there really was a practical alternative, our
> criticism
> > > of
> > > > > FDR falls down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The speech given by Bush in Latvia contained a
> > > > > questionable parallel but actually understated the evil deeds of
> the
> > > > > Roosevelt administration. Both FDR and Churchill lied to their
> > > people
> > > > > down to 1945 about the Soviet regime, that is, they lied even
> after
> > > Nazi
> > > > > Germany represented a real threat to us and after the Soviets
> had
> > > gone
> > > > > on the rampage in Eastern Europe and had become the main foreign
> > > policy
> > > > > threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to show that he ever
> awoke
> > > > > from his delusions about the Soviets or was ever willing to
> moderate
> > > his
> > > > > desire to crush the Axis totally to notice geopolitical
> reality.In
> > > his
> > > > > irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equalled by the
> > > Republican
> > > > > Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly with FDR's war
> > > policy
> > > > > than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was always too late
> in
> > > the
> > > > > War, since he had no plans that he was willing to share about
> > > containing
> > > > > Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about Stalin as a
> > > great
> > > > > democrat. PG
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > To: Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > President Bush said in his speech in Latvia on
> May
> > > 5:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust
> > > > > tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The parallel between Yalta and Munich is
> arguable,
> > > since
> > > > > Chamberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of the
> Sudetenland,
> > > > > while Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of Eastern
> > > Europe
> > > > > (though it's not clear to me that FDR by that point had any
> > > realistic
> > > > > choice in the matter). However, Bush's parallel between Yalta
> and
> > > the
> > > > > Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The Molotov-Ribbentrop
> pact
> > > > > didn't simply involve one power giving the go-ahead to another
> power
> > > to
> > > > > occupy some country; it involved the two powers' mutual carving
> up
> > > of
> > > > > that country. Stalin said Hitler could take western Poland, and
> > > Hitler
> > > > > said Stalin could take eastern Poland. It was an agreement
> between
> > > two
> > > > > totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a third
> country.
> > > No
> > > > > matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in its results
> > > Roosevelt's
> > > > > deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a moral
> equivalence
> > > > > between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray America as
> the
> > > moral
> > > > > equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is utterly
> wrong
> > > and an
> > > > > insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a d___ care
> > > about
> > > > > such piddling details of historical truth. And he couldn't care
> less
> > > > > about showing a decent respect for his own country and for
> former
> > > U.S.
> > > > > presidents when he is speaking as U.S. president in a foreign
> land.
> > > No.
> > > > > The main thing for Bush is to place himself, the avatar of pure
> > > > > democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and everything in the
> > > > > American past.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 16 08:34:26 2005
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:34:26 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050516123426.GA29542@vectra>
References: <20050515110559.GA22028@vectra> <028901c55949$ba7a7780$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515132520.GA22330@vectra> <02d201c5595e$18c097c0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515153216.GA23677@vectra> <030a01c55966$516c1060$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515161312.GB23677@vectra> <031401c5596c$2cdc43e0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515180100.GA23944@vectra> <038401c55979$89cc2720$6347fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <038401c55979$89cc2720$6347fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1606 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 34503
Lines: 1001
I've never studied, discussed or thought seriously about the end of WW
II. Larry's general perspective does seem very odd to me. It seems to
treat killing top Nazis and getting all the documentation on just what
they did as major war aims justifying refusal to discuss terms with
people willing and able to get rid of Hitler well before May 1945 (if
such people did indeed exist -- I don't know enough to have an opinion
on that).
My assumption is that getting rid of Hitler would involve getting rid of
other top Nazis and the disintegration of the quite bizarre Nazi
outlook, without which the death camps etc. would have made no sense.
That assumption as I've said is based on the thought that the Nazis and
what they did were special and not likely to survive defeat or recur in
the same form, so that focussing on their particulars in deciding what
to do to take care of the future was a mistake.
My view is based much more on my sense of what the world's like than
special knowledge. So I suppose I hold it with some mixture of openness
(more knowlege would undoubtedly change some of my views) and
non-openness (a basic outlook on what sorts of things make sense is
usually pretty stable).
I do think and I've said this that today the Nazis and Holocaust play
too important a symbolic role. They constitute a sort of established
religion on which government is based. In Europe it's unthinkable to
suffer penalty for questioning the being, attributes and significance of
God but the same is not true of the Holocaust. It's a metaphysical
absolute by reference to which everything else has to be ordered. I
think that giving a particular evil thing however evil that kind of
status distorts morality and politics. Things (immigration controls say)
are judged not by reference to their relation to the whole range of
human concerns but by their relationship to the metaphysical absolute
(the Holocaust) and whatever general human tendencies (ethnic
solidarities and aversions) are thought to have contributed to the
particulars of that event.
I agree with Ken that a lot of the unconditional surrender business was
a matter of "they did it in 1914 and in 1939 so this time let's really
stomp them so they won't do it in 1964." Whether that made sense I
suppose depends on (1) whether WW I was basically something the Germans
did to everybody else (I have no opinion on the subject), and (2)
whether looking at maps, military, economic and political trends etc. it
made sense in 1944 to think that the threat to peace and stability
during the following decades was going to be Germany, so that it was a
good idea to eliminate it as a factor in favor of whoever else was
around to pick up the pieces.
The "let's make sure they don't do it yet again" theory can't be the
whole story though since as I recall we also wanted unconditional
surrender in Japan (although we eventually relented and said they could
keep the Emperor).
jk
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:11:31PM -0400, la wrote:
> True. Jim used the qualifying language. Is he then open to the
> argument that Nazism did have to be utterly crushed? Or is he,
> notwithstanding the qualifying language, still taking as his starting
> point the assumption that Nazism had no logos, and therefore had no
> staying power, and therefore didn't have to be crushed?
>
> It's not as if this is a new issue. Jim has written before that the
> West has bent itself out of shape by making too big a deal out of
> Nazism. So, despite the "ifs" and "seems," this is pretty much a set
> position of his.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:01.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>
>
> > "But Jim is already pronouncing as a settled thing that because Nazism
> > is not "reproducible," it's not an entirely real or legitimate entity,
> > and therefore we don't have to worry about it as an entity."
> >
> > I used expressions like "if," "the issue is whether" and so on. I did
> > talk about my "inclination" and about how Naziism "seems" to me, but
> > it's hard for me to see that language as equal to "already pronouncing
> > as a settled thing."
> >
> > I'm off for the rest of the day though, so I'll leave these issues for
> > now to anyone who wants to talk about them.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:35:52PM -0400, la wrote:
> > >
> > > > so that we have to give up any chance of stopping
> > > > the war sooner so we can retrain all the Germans and turn them
> into
> > > > something else.
> > >
> > > Jim is missing what I said earlier. I said:
> > >
> > > "If one could make an argument for an alternative strategy by which
> the
> > > Communist conquest of Central Europe could have been avoided by
> means of
> > > a less than complete German surrender, I think one would have to
> > > consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look realistically and
> honestly
> > > at what the costs of this negotiated surrender would have been."
> > >
> > > I'm willing to consider all sides of the issue. But Jim is already
> > > pronouncing as a settled thing that because Nazism is not
> > > "reproducible," it's not an entirely real or legitimate entity, and
> > > therefore we don't have to worry about it as an entity. He
> > > retrospectively wants the allies in World War II to treat the
> Germans
> > > the way the U.S. treated Iraq in the Iraq war: defeat them in the
> > > battlefield, scatter their armies, and the war is over. The tiny
> little
> > > problem with that approach is that you haven't really defeated the
> > > enemy. Ba'athism (which not coincidentally has roots in both Nazism
> and
> > > Communism) is a pretty thin ideology, yet the Ba'athists have
> persisted
> > > despite their battlefield defeat and have succeeded in turning large
> > > areas of Iraq into a slaughterhouse, depriving the US of a real
> victory
> > > and, as far as I can see, making it impossible for any decent
> successor
> > > government to survive. So, imagine a 1945 Germany in which we had
> > > simply let all the Germans walk home and did not uproot and destroy
> the
> > > Nazi regime. Nazism would not have really been defeated. As I said
> > > before, the question I've been dealing with here is the defeat of
> > > Nazism, not the preventing of the future reproducibility of Nazism,
> > > though that is a legitimate issue to discuss too.
> > >
> > > I do think Jim is approaching this subject in too abstract a manner
> and
> > > not looking at the whole reality.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:13.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > >
> > >
> > > > If it's not reproducible then once it's lost it's gone. What more
> is
> > > > needed as a practical matter?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether Naziism is a bizarre catastrophe that because
> > > it's
> > > > a bizarre catastrophe has to be put down but won't come back or
> > > whether
> > > > it's a solid thing that's deeply part of European culture, the
> German
> > > > people or whatever, so that we have to give up any chance of
> stopping
> > > > the war sooner so we can retrain all the Germans and turn them
> into
> > > > something else. Larry seems to be saying that only an abstract
> > > > intellectual theoretician could possibly believe the former.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 11:53:55AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > > Very interesting point, but not entirely relevant. The concern
> that
> > > > > I've given voice to here has not been the reproducibility of
> Nazism,
> > > but
> > > > > the defeat, extirpation, and exposure of Nazism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim almost acts as if Nazism wasn't a problem, since Nazism
> didn't
> > > have
> > > > > a high-level, coherent articulation as a belief. This is to
> > > approach
> > > > > the issue in too abstract a manner. Notwithstanding the
> limitations
> > > of
> > > > > Nazism as an ideology, the Nazis, driven by that ideology, took
> over
> > > and
> > > > > mobilized an entire country and launched the greatest and most
> > > > > destructive war in history. Jim's expectation that the allies
> would
> > > not
> > > > > want to make sure that the beast that had destroyed the world
> was
> > > not
> > > > > truly defeated, dead, uprooted, and destroyed is the kind of
> thing
> > > that
> > > > > only an intellectual could say.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:32.a.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me a lot of the issue is whether Naziism as a
> specific
> > > > > > movement had an enduring identity and solidity and staying
> power
> > > over
> > > > > > against other forms that the collapse of political life into
> > > > > irrational
> > > > > > fanaticism can have such that it's a major continuing danger
> and
> > > it
> > > > > was
> > > > > > worth a great many lives and much destruction to nail it
> > > absolutely so
> > > > > > that forever thereafter everybody would know to avoid it and
> > > anything
> > > > > > connected to it or reminiscent of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My own inclination is to say that Naziism isn't specially
> > > > > reproducible,
> > > > > > it was a one-time thing, and that assuming Hitler is out of
> the
> > > > > picture
> > > > > > an emphasis on root-and-branch elimination of that particular
> > > thing is
> > > > > > more likely to act as a distraction from other dangers. Part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > reason for viewing things that way is that Naziism seems to me
> > > > > unstable
> > > > > > as a basis for government. It needs constant extreme struggle,
> > > always
> > > > > > something bigger and more dramatic, and you can't keep that
> up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:55:04AM -0400, la
> wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm not saying that a less-then-unconditional surrender of
> > > Germany
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > not have been a defeat for the Nazis. (That's four negatives
> in
> > > one
> > > > > > > sentence, a record.) But it also would have fallen short
> of
> > > > > bringing
> > > > > > > Nazi Germany into our power, with the ability to arrest and
> kill
> > > the
> > > > > top
> > > > > > > Nazis, de-Nazify the country, liberate and document the
> death
> > > camps,
> > > > > > > seize the vast stores of Nazi documents which proved to the
> > > world
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > the Hitler regime really did and what it really was, and
> overall
> > > > > truly
> > > > > > > DEFEAT Nazi Germany. Now, I'm not saying that that is
> > > necessarily
> > > > > > > dispositive. If one could make an argument for an
> alternative
> > > > > strategy
> > > > > > > by which the Communist conquest of Central Europe could have
> > > been
> > > > > > > avoided by means of a less than German surrender, I think
> one
> > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > to consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look
> realistically
> > > and
> > > > > > > honestly at what the costs of this negotiated surrender
> would
> > > have
> > > > > been.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, for those, such as Buchanan, who always diminish
> the
> > > evil
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > Nazism, such considerations are irrelevant. .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:25.a.m.
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How many actual Nazis are there? At a distance it seems
> that
> > > it's
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > easy to qualify as what's called a neonazi but there don't
> > > seem to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > many even of them. There are juvenile delinquents who
> affect
> > > Nazi
> > > > > > > > mannerisms to make themselves objectionable but that
> doesn't
> > > seem
> > > > > > > > seriously political.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nazism seems to me like a very odd movement that depended
> on
> > > > > special
> > > > > > > > conditions, a gifted leader and luck. Willful
> irrationality
> > > and
> > > > > > > dramatic
> > > > > > > > successes gave it dynamism but I don't see that it could
> have
> > > had
> > > > > much
> > > > > > > > staying power. There wasn't a serious ideology there. If
> the
> > > whole
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > is "hail victory" and the will of Adolf Hitler as the
> supreme
> > > > > > > overriding
> > > > > > > > life-and-death standard then it's not clear what's there
> that
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > survive a serious reverse like the negotiated loss of a
> major
> > > war
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > millions dead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I seem to recall that Borges had a theory that Hitler
> wanted
> > > to go
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > to flaming defeat. That seems right to me, because it's
> more
> > > > > grandiose
> > > > > > > > than actually winning. Comedies aren't as impressive as
> > > tragedies.
> > > > > A
> > > > > > > > negotiated disadvantageous peace is even less impressive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, la
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > It would have survived as a group and as an ideology.
> Even
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > the unconditional surrender of Germany, there is a
> > > continuing
> > > > > > > movement
> > > > > > > > > of people today still hankering after Nazism. Imagine
> if
> > > the
> > > > > Nazis
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > not been uprooted. They would have remained an active
> > > element
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > German
> > > > > > > > > and European politics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:05.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But what would Nazism have looked like after getting rid
> of
> > > > > Hitler
> > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism that
> gives
> > > way
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the
> highest
> > > > > law,
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have thought.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, Lawrence
> Auster
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change
> Germany
> > > into
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > pastoral country. Obviously that was not done.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But getting back to the alternative scenario, it would
> > > have
> > > > > meant
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > Nazism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have been out
> of
> > > > > power,
> > > > > > > sort
> > > > > > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm just
> > > trying to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > picture here of whether there was an acceptable way to
> > > prevent
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Soviets from taking over Eastern Europe.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ;
> r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > Ian
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jim: You'll have to send me your address again. I
> have
> > > > > > > uncorrected
> > > > > > > > > galleys I promised to send to your Brooklyn apartment.
> PG
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ;
> r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > > > > > > > ian@aea.org ; Eugene girin
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Those we would have negotiated with were enemies of
> the
> > > > > Nazis,
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > did not approve of what was done to the Jews, the use of
> > > > > > > concentration
> > > > > > > > > camps, the suspension of a state under law, etc.. In any
> > > case
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Western Allies should have insisted on the right to
> oversee
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > transition to an anti-Nazi and anti-Communist German
> > > government.
> > > > > > > > > Unconditional surrender combined in 1944 with the
> acceptance
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. would do to
> > > Germany
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would be
> > > entirely at
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which
> > > Churchill
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > FDR
> > > > > > > > > both signed off on in 1944, German men would be either
> > > > > sterilized or
> > > > > > > > > deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not impose
> > > > > > > unconditional
> > > > > > > > > surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing the
> > > Soviets
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > launching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It also
> wedged
> > > the
> > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > > into a total commitment to fight the Germans to the
> bitter
> > > > > > > end--without
> > > > > > > > > requiring anything from Hitlar's former eastern allies.
> From
> > > > > what I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > tell, this policy was wildly popular among Western
> > > Communists
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Communist fellow-travelers, like Harry Dexter White, for
> > > obvious
> > > > > > > > > reasons. It committed us to a war without mercy against
> the
> > > > > enemies
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Stalin--without denying him the right to pull out if he
> > > wanted.
> > > > > PG
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the allies
> not
> > > get
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > possess the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave a
> > > complete
> > > > > > > history
> > > > > > > > > of the inner activities of the Third Reich. That also
> would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > remained in German hands.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to
> the
> > > > > > > essentials.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What we did was a combination of unconditional
> > > surrender
> > > > > > > demand
> > > > > > > > > and cooperation with Stalin What we should have done
> was
> > > drop
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > unconditional surrender demand and make a separate piece
> > > with
> > > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > > and drop our alliance with Stalin. This would have made
> the
> > > > > > > firebombing
> > > > > > > > > of cities unnecessary because that firebombing was only
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the point of view of getting an unconditional surrender.
> > > (But
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > true?)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Was the unconditional surrender demand a
> necessary
> > > price
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Beyond what's been already said, can you give me
> a
> > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > what a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional
> > > surrender?)
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > have looked like? Apparently it would have meant that
> the
> > > > > allies
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death
> camps?
> > > Not
> > > > > root
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > the Nazis? Not engage in de-Nazification? Not execute
> and
> > > > > punish
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > top Nazis?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, explain how this would have prevented the
> > > Soviet
> > > > > > > > > occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we cease materiel
> aid
> > > to
> > > > > > > Soviets,
> > > > > > > > > re-arm the Germans?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think I have laid out this scenario more
> than
> > > once.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > were chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before and
> during
> > > the
> > > > > > > War,
> > > > > > > > > starting in 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals
> > > > > approached
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > British government and stressed how shaky H's position
> was
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > eve of
> > > > > > > > > the Munich accords. In 1944 when German officers and
> > > political
> > > > > > > leaders,
> > > > > > > > > like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies and offered
> to
> > > > > surrender
> > > > > > > > > conditionally, they were unceremoniously turned down by
> > > > > Churchill.
> > > > > > > Lots
> > > > > > > > > of details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study of the
> > > German
> > > > > > > > > Resistance, which came from a strong anti-Nazi who was
> close
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never have insisted
> on
> > > > > > > > > unconditional surrender of the German people, should
> have
> > > > > avoided
> > > > > > > fire
> > > > > > > > > bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan, which
> got
> > > out to
> > > > > > > > > everyone in the world, and should have pursued a
> separate
> > > peace
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Axis.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done to
> > > assure
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > we would never have done what we should have done, and
> > > sensible
> > > > > > > > > commanders, like Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled by
> how
> > > > > > > politically
> > > > > > > > > stupid the U.S. government showed itself in dealing with
> > > Stalin.
> > > > > > > That we
> > > > > > > > > continued to suck up to Stalin while the German army was
> on
> > > the
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the East was sheer idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it may
> have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and
> Central
> > > > > Europe
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > even after Roosevelt continued to misrepresent the
> Soviet
> > > > > government
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > his countrymen. When I was first exposed to Revisionist
> > > history
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our government had
> spent
> > > year
> > > > > > > appeasing
> > > > > > > > > Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing over
> escaped
> > > > > Soviet
> > > > > > > > > civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By the
> way,
> > > I
> > > > > hold
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > clueless Truman less responsible for this than the
> Brits,
> > > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still floored
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > chutpah of
> > > > > > > > > the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as FDR,
> > > screaming
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of their
> > > > > appeasement
> > > > > > > > > became clear. PG
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and
> Paul
> > > may
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > responded to me privately and briefly, but I would like
> to
> > > see a
> > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > scenario laid out in which FDR does the right thing vis
> a
> > > vis
> > > > > Europe
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire
> scenario
> > > is
> > > > > needed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > make this proposition intelligible. Otherwise it's just
> a
> > > gripe
> > > > > > > (I've
> > > > > > > > > made the gripe many times myself) that he was too
> accepting
> > > of
> > > > > Uncle
> > > > > > > > > Joe. Unless there really was a practical alternative,
> our
> > > > > criticism
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > FDR falls down.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The speech given by Bush in Latvia
> contained a
> > > > > > > > > questionable parallel but actually understated the evil
> > > deeds of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Roosevelt administration. Both FDR and Churchill lied to
> > > their
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > down to 1945 about the Soviet regime, that is, they lied
> > > even
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > Nazi
> > > > > > > > > Germany represented a real threat to us and after the
> > > Soviets
> > > > > had
> > > > > > > gone
> > > > > > > > > on the rampage in Eastern Europe and had become the main
> > > foreign
> > > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > > > threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to show that
> he
> > > ever
> > > > > awoke
> > > > > > > > > from his delusions about the Soviets or was ever willing
> to
> > > > > moderate
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > desire to crush the Axis totally to notice geopolitical
> > > > > reality.In
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equalled by
> the
> > > > > > > Republican
> > > > > > > > > Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly with
> FDR's
> > > war
> > > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > > > than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was always
> too
> > > late
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > War, since he had no plans that he was willing to share
> > > about
> > > > > > > containing
> > > > > > > > > Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about
> Stalin
> > > as a
> > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > democrat. PG
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > To: Eugene Girin ;
> k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the
> Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > President Bush said in his speech in
> Latvia
> > > on
> > > > > May
> > > > > > > 5:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The agreement at Yalta followed in the
> > > unjust
> > > > > > > > > tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The parallel between Yalta and Munich is
> > > > > arguable,
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > Chamberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of the
> > > > > Sudetenland,
> > > > > > > > > while Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of
> > > Eastern
> > > > > > > Europe
> > > > > > > > > (though it's not clear to me that FDR by that point had
> any
> > > > > > > realistic
> > > > > > > > > choice in the matter). However, Bush's parallel between
> > > Yalta
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The
> > > Molotov-Ribbentrop
> > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > didn't simply involve one power giving the go-ahead to
> > > another
> > > > > power
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > occupy some country; it involved the two powers' mutual
> > > carving
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > that country. Stalin said Hitler could take western
> Poland,
> > > and
> > > > > > > Hitler
> > > > > > > > > said Stalin could take eastern Poland. It was an
> agreement
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a
> third
> > > > > country.
> > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in its
> results
> > > > > > > Roosevelt's
> > > > > > > > > deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a moral
> > > > > equivalence
> > > > > > > > > between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray
> America
> > > as
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > moral
> > > > > > > > > equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is
> utterly
> > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > and an
> > > > > > > > > insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a
> d___
> > > care
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > such piddling details of historical truth. And he
> couldn't
> > > care
> > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > about showing a decent respect for his own country and
> for
> > > > > former
> > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > > presidents when he is speaking as U.S. president in a
> > > foreign
> > > > > land.
> > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > > > > The main thing for Bush is to place himself, the avatar
> of
> > > pure
> > > > > > > > > democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and
> everything in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > American past.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 16 09:46:50 2005
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:46:50 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050516134650.GB30055@vectra>
References: <20050515132520.GA22330@vectra> <02d201c5595e$18c097c0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515153216.GA23677@vectra> <030a01c55966$516c1060$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515161312.GB23677@vectra> <031401c5596c$2cdc43e0$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050515180100.GA23944@vectra> <038401c55979$89cc2720$6347fea9@h6l3p> <20050516123426.GA29542@vectra> <012d01c55a18$265d70a0$1285fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <012d01c55a18$265d70a0$1285fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1609 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 43907
Lines: 1192
I don't find careful consideration or disagreement on whether
unconditional surrender was good or bad very odd. I do find an emphasis
on absoluteness and totality in uprooting, exposing, and discrediting
the Nazi regime, beyond what would have been the case after its
conditional defeat, very odd in evaluating the aims of a war carried on
in alliance with the Soviets. It seems very odd to me to put killing top
Nazis and getting all the documentation on them in a short list of
considerations to balance against the possibility of shortening the war
and ending up in a better political and military position with regard to
the Soviets. It might have helped avoid confusion if I had said "as
among major war aims" rather than "as major war aims" in my language
Larry quotes below.
jk
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:06:58AM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> I'd just like to note Jim's use of words: He regards as "very odd" my
> view that we should have carefully considered the costs of a possible
> negotiated settlement with the Germans (which would have taken away our
> ability utterly to uproot, expose, and discredit the Nazi regime) versus
> its possible benefits (namely a shortened and less destructive war and
> conceivably, though not likely, the prevention of the Soviet domination
> of Eastern Europe). Yesterday he said that his own view, that there was
> no danger of a recurrence of Nazism, and therefore we didn't need to
> uproot it, was merely tentative, offered with lots of "ifs" and "seems,"
> and thus implying that I was being unfair by attributing a fixed
> position to him. Yet today he says that merely by disagreeing with him
> I have a "very odd" view.
>
> And notice the way he characterizes my view:
>
> It seems to
> > treat killing top Nazis and getting all the documentation on just what
> > they did as major war aims justifying refusal to discuss terms with
> > people willing and able to get rid of Hitler well before May 1945
>
> No, I wasn't just talking about killing top Nazis and getting a hold of
> the true history of their regime. I was talking about utterly
> destroying the Nazi regime, which we could only be assured of doing if
> there was unconditional surrender. I wonder how Jim missed missed that
> detail.
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 8:34.a.m. Subject: Re:
> Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
>
> > I've never studied, discussed or thought seriously about the end of WW
> > II. Larry's general perspective does seem very odd to me. It seems to
> > treat killing top Nazis and getting all the documentation on just what
> > they did as major war aims justifying refusal to discuss terms with
> > people willing and able to get rid of Hitler well before May 1945 (if
> > such people did indeed exist -- I don't know enough to have an opinion
> > on that).
> >
> > My assumption is that getting rid of Hitler would involve getting rid
> > of other top Nazis and the disintegration of the quite bizarre Nazi
> > outlook, without which the death camps etc. would have made no sense.
> > That assumption as I've said is based on the thought that the Nazis
> > and what they did were special and not likely to survive defeat or
> > recur in the same form, so that focussing on their particulars in
> > deciding what to do to take care of the future was a mistake.
> >
> > My view is based much more on my sense of what the world's like than
> > special knowledge. So I suppose I hold it with some mixture of
> > openness (more knowlege would undoubtedly change some of my views) and
> > non-openness (a basic outlook on what sorts of things make sense is
> > usually pretty stable).
> >
> > I do think and I've said this that today the Nazis and Holocaust play
> > too important a symbolic role. They constitute a sort of established
> > religion on which government is based. In Europe it's unthinkable to
> > suffer penalty for questioning the being, attributes and significance
> > of God but the same is not true of the Holocaust. It's a metaphysical
> > absolute by reference to which everything else has to be ordered. I
> > think that giving a particular evil thing however evil that kind of
> > status distorts morality and politics. Things (immigration controls
> > say) are judged not by reference to their relation to the whole range
> > of human concerns but by their relationship to the metaphysical
> > absolute (the Holocaust) and whatever general human tendencies (ethnic
> > solidarities and aversions) are thought to have contributed to the
> > particulars of that event.
> >
> > I agree with Ken that a lot of the unconditional surrender business
> > was a matter of "they did it in 1914 and in 1939 so this time let's
> > really stomp them so they won't do it in 1964." Whether that made
> > sense I suppose depends on (1) whether WW I was basically something
> > the Germans did to everybody else (I have no opinion on the subject),
> > and (2) whether looking at maps, military, economic and political
> > trends etc. it made sense in 1944 to think that the threat to peace
> > and stability during the following decades was going to be Germany,
> > so that it was a good idea to eliminate it as a factor in favor of
> > whoever else was around to pick up the pieces.
> >
> > The "let's make sure they don't do it yet again" theory can't be the
> > whole story though since as I recall we also wanted unconditional
> > surrender in Japan (although we eventually relented and said they
> > could keep the Emperor).
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:11:31PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > True. Jim used the qualifying language. Is he then open to the
> > > argument that Nazism did have to be utterly crushed? Or is he,
> > > notwithstanding the qualifying language, still taking as his
> > > starting point the assumption that Nazism had no logos, and
> > > therefore had no staying power, and therefore didn't have to be
> > > crushed?
> > >
> > > It's not as if this is a new issue. Jim has written before that the
> > > West has bent itself out of shape by making too big a deal out of
> > > Nazism. So, despite the "ifs" and "seems," this is pretty much a
> > > set position of his.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > To: "la"
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:01.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > >
> > >
> > > > "But Jim is already pronouncing as a settled thing that because
> > > > Nazism is not "reproducible," it's not an entirely real or
> > > > legitimate entity, and therefore we don't have to worry about it
> > > > as an entity."
> > > >
> > > > I used expressions like "if," "the issue is whether" and so on. I
> > > > did talk about my "inclination" and about how Naziism "seems" to
> > > > me, but it's hard for me to see that language as equal to
> > > > "already pronouncing as a settled thing."
> > > >
> > > > I'm off for the rest of the day though, so I'll leave these
> > > > issues for now to anyone who wants to talk about them.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:35:52PM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > so that we have to give up any chance of stopping
> > > > > > the war sooner so we can retrain all the Germans and turn them
> > > into
> > > > > > something else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim is missing what I said earlier. I said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "If one could make an argument for an alternative strategy by
> > > > > which
> > > the
> > > > > Communist conquest of Central Europe could have been avoided by
> > > means of
> > > > > a less than complete German surrender, I think one would have to
> > > > > consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look realistically and
> > > honestly
> > > > > at what the costs of this negotiated surrender would have been."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm willing to consider all sides of the issue. But Jim is
> > > > > already pronouncing as a settled thing that because Nazism is
> > > > > not "reproducible," it's not an entirely real or legitimate
> > > > > entity, and therefore we don't have to worry about it as an
> > > > > entity. He retrospectively wants the allies in World War II to
> > > > > treat the
> > > Germans
> > > > > the way the U.S. treated Iraq in the Iraq war: defeat them in
> > > > > the battlefield, scatter their armies, and the war is over.
> > > > > The tiny
> > > little
> > > > > problem with that approach is that you haven't really defeated
> > > > > the enemy. Ba'athism (which not coincidentally has roots in
> > > > > both Nazism
> > > and
> > > > > Communism) is a pretty thin ideology, yet the Ba'athists have
> > > persisted
> > > > > despite their battlefield defeat and have succeeded in turning
> > > > > large areas of Iraq into a slaughterhouse, depriving the US of
> > > > > a real
> > > victory
> > > > > and, as far as I can see, making it impossible for any decent
> > > successor
> > > > > government to survive. So, imagine a 1945 Germany in which we
> > > > > had simply let all the Germans walk home and did not uproot and
> > > > > destroy
> > > the
> > > > > Nazi regime. Nazism would not have really been defeated. As I
> > > > > said before, the question I've been dealing with here is the
> > > > > defeat of Nazism, not the preventing of the future
> > > > > reproducibility of Nazism, though that is a legitimate issue to
> > > > > discuss too.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think Jim is approaching this subject in too abstract a
> > > > > manner
> > > and
> > > > > not looking at the whole reality.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:13.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If it's not reproducible then once it's lost it's gone. What
> > > > > > more
> > > is
> > > > > > needed as a practical matter?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is whether Naziism is a bizarre catastrophe that
> > > > > > because
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > a bizarre catastrophe has to be put down but won't come back
> > > > > > or
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > it's a solid thing that's deeply part of European culture, the
> > > German
> > > > > > people or whatever, so that we have to give up any chance of
> > > stopping
> > > > > > the war sooner so we can retrain all the Germans and turn them
> > > into
> > > > > > something else. Larry seems to be saying that only an abstract
> > > > > > intellectual theoretician could possibly believe the former.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 11:53:55AM -0400, la
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Very interesting point, but not entirely relevant. The
> > > > > > > concern
> > > that
> > > > > > > I've given voice to here has not been the reproducibility of
> > > Nazism,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > the defeat, extirpation, and exposure of Nazism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim almost acts as if Nazism wasn't a problem, since Nazism
> > > didn't
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > a high-level, coherent articulation as a belief. This is to
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > the issue in too abstract a manner. Notwithstanding the
> > > limitations
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > Nazism as an ideology, the Nazis, driven by that ideology,
> > > > > > > took
> > > over
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > mobilized an entire country and launched the greatest and
> > > > > > > most destructive war in history. Jim's expectation that
> > > > > > > the allies
> > > would
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > want to make sure that the beast that had destroyed the
> > > > > > > world
> > > was
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > truly defeated, dead, uprooted, and destroyed is the kind of
> > > thing
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > only an intellectual could say.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:32.a.m.
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems to me a lot of the issue is whether Naziism as a
> > > specific
> > > > > > > > movement had an enduring identity and solidity and staying
> > > power
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > > against other forms that the collapse of political life
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > irrational
> > > > > > > > fanaticism can have such that it's a major continuing
> > > > > > > > danger
> > > and
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > worth a great many lives and much destruction to nail it
> > > > > absolutely so
> > > > > > > > that forever thereafter everybody would know to avoid it
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > connected to it or reminiscent of it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My own inclination is to say that Naziism isn't specially
> > > > > > > reproducible,
> > > > > > > > it was a one-time thing, and that assuming Hitler is out
> > > > > > > > of
> > > the
> > > > > > > picture
> > > > > > > > an emphasis on root-and-branch elimination of that
> > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > thing is
> > > > > > > > more likely to act as a distraction from other dangers.
> > > > > > > > Part
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > reason for viewing things that way is that Naziism seems
> > > > > > > > to me
> > > > > > > unstable
> > > > > > > > as a basis for government. It needs constant extreme
> > > > > > > > struggle,
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > > something bigger and more dramatic, and you can't keep
> > > > > > > > that
> > > up.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:55:04AM -0400, la
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I'm not saying that a less-then-unconditional surrender
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > not have been a defeat for the Nazis. (That's four
> > > > > > > > > negatives
> > > in
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > sentence, a record.) But it also would have fallen
> > > > > > > > > short
> > > of
> > > > > > > bringing
> > > > > > > > > Nazi Germany into our power, with the ability to arrest
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > kill
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > Nazis, de-Nazify the country, liberate and document the
> > > death
> > > > > camps,
> > > > > > > > > seize the vast stores of Nazi documents which proved to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > world
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > the Hitler regime really did and what it really was, and
> > > overall
> > > > > > > truly
> > > > > > > > > DEFEAT Nazi Germany. Now, I'm not saying that that is
> > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > > > > dispositive. If one could make an argument for an
> > > alternative
> > > > > > > strategy
> > > > > > > > > by which the Communist conquest of Central Europe could
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > avoided by means of a less than German surrender, I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > one
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > to consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look
> > > realistically
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > honestly at what the costs of this negotiated surrender
> > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > been.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course, for those, such as Buchanan, who always
> > > > > > > > > diminish
> > > the
> > > > > evil
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Nazism, such considerations are irrelevant. .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:25.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How many actual Nazis are there? At a distance it
> > > > > > > > > > seems
> > > that
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > easy to qualify as what's called a neonazi but there
> > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > seem to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > many even of them. There are juvenile delinquents who
> > > affect
> > > > > Nazi
> > > > > > > > > > mannerisms to make themselves objectionable but that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > seem
> > > > > > > > > > seriously political.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nazism seems to me like a very odd movement that
> > > > > > > > > > depended
> > > on
> > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > > conditions, a gifted leader and luck. Willful
> > > irrationality
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > dramatic
> > > > > > > > > > successes gave it dynamism but I don't see that it
> > > > > > > > > > could
> > > have
> > > > > had
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > staying power. There wasn't a serious ideology there.
> > > > > > > > > > If
> > > the
> > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > is "hail victory" and the will of Adolf Hitler as the
> > > supreme
> > > > > > > > > overriding
> > > > > > > > > > life-and-death standard then it's not clear what's
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > that
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > survive a serious reverse like the negotiated loss of
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > major
> > > > > war
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > millions dead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I seem to recall that Borges had a theory that Hitler
> > > wanted
> > > > > to go
> > > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > to flaming defeat. That seems right to me, because
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > more
> > > > > > > grandiose
> > > > > > > > > > than actually winning. Comedies aren't as impressive
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > tragedies.
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > > > > negotiated disadvantageous peace is even less
> > > > > > > > > > impressive.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, Lawrence
> > > > > > > > > > Auster
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > It would have survived as a group and as an
> > > > > > > > > > > ideology.
> > > Even
> > > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > the unconditional surrender of Germany, there is a
> > > > > continuing
> > > > > > > > > movement
> > > > > > > > > > > of people today still hankering after Nazism.
> > > > > > > > > > > Imagine
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Nazis
> > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > not been uprooted. They would have remained an
> > > > > > > > > > > active
> > > > > element
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > German
> > > > > > > > > > > and European politics.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:05.a.m.
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But what would Nazism have looked like after
> > > > > > > > > > > getting rid
> > > of
> > > > > > > Hitler
> > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > > > negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > gives
> > > > > way
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the
> > > highest
> > > > > > > law,
> > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have
> > > > > > > > > > > thought.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > jk
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, Lawrence
> > > Auster
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change
> > > Germany
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > pastoral country. Obviously that was not done.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But getting back to the alternative scenario, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > meant
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > Nazism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have
> > > > > > > > > > > been out
> > > of
> > > > > > > power,
> > > > > > > > > sort
> > > > > > > > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > trying to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > picture here of whether there was an acceptable way
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Soviets from taking over Eastern Europe.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ;
> > > r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > > > Ian
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > > > > > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jim: You'll have to send me your address again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > uncorrected
> > > > > > > > > > > galleys I promised to send to your Brooklyn
> > > > > > > > > > > apartment.
> > > PG
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ;
> > > r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > > > > > > > > > ian@aea.org ; Eugene girin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > > > > > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Those we would have negotiated with were
> > > > > > > > > > > > enemies of
> > > the
> > > > > > > Nazis,
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > did not approve of what was done to the Jews, the
> > > > > > > > > > > use of
> > > > > > > > > concentration
> > > > > > > > > > > camps, the suspension of a state under law, etc..
> > > > > > > > > > > In any
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Western Allies should have insisted on the right to
> > > oversee
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > transition to an anti-Nazi and anti-Communist German
> > > > > government.
> > > > > > > > > > > Unconditional surrender combined in 1944 with the
> > > acceptance
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. would
> > > > > > > > > > > do to
> > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would be
> > > > > entirely at
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which
> > > > > Churchill
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > FDR
> > > > > > > > > > > both signed off on in 1944, German men would be
> > > > > > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > sterilized or
> > > > > > > > > > > deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not
> > > > > > > > > > > impose
> > > > > > > > > unconditional
> > > > > > > > > > > surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > Soviets
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > launching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > wedged
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > > into a total commitment to fight the Germans to the
> > > bitter
> > > > > > > > > end--without
> > > > > > > > > > > requiring anything from Hitlar's former eastern
> > > > > > > > > > > allies.
> > > From
> > > > > > > what I
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > tell, this policy was wildly popular among Western
> > > > > Communists
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Communist fellow-travelers, like Harry Dexter
> > > > > > > > > > > White, for
> > > > > obvious
> > > > > > > > > > > reasons. It committed us to a war without mercy
> > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > the
> > > > > > > enemies
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Stalin--without denying him the right to pull out
> > > > > > > > > > > if he
> > > > > wanted.
> > > > > > > PG
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > allies
> > > not
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > possess the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > complete
> > > > > > > > > history
> > > > > > > > > > > of the inner activities of the Third Reich. That
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > would
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > remained in German hands.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > essentials.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What we did was a combination of
> > > > > > > > > > > > unconditional
> > > > > surrender
> > > > > > > > > demand
> > > > > > > > > > > and cooperation with Stalin What we should have
> > > > > > > > > > > done
> > > was
> > > > > drop
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > unconditional surrender demand and make a separate
> > > > > > > > > > > piece
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > > > > and drop our alliance with Stalin. This would have
> > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > firebombing
> > > > > > > > > > > of cities unnecessary because that firebombing was
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > the point of view of getting an unconditional
> > > > > > > > > > > surrender.
> > > > > (But
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > true?)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was the unconditional surrender demand a
> > > necessary
> > > > > price
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Beyond what's been already said, can you
> > > > > > > > > > > > give me
> > > a
> > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > what a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional
> > > > > surrender?)
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > have looked like? Apparently it would have meant
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > the
> > > > > > > allies
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death
> > > camps?
> > > > > Not
> > > > > > > root
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > the Nazis? Not engage in de-Nazification? Not
> > > > > > > > > > > execute
> > > and
> > > > > > > punish
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > top Nazis?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, explain how this would have prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > Soviet
> > > > > > > > > > > occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we cease
> > > > > > > > > > > materiel
> > > aid
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > Soviets,
> > > > > > > > > > > re-arm the Germans?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think I have laid out this scenario more
> > > than
> > > > > once.
> > > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > were chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > during
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > War,
> > > > > > > > > > > starting in 1938, when high-level diplomats and
> > > > > > > > > > > generals
> > > > > > > approached
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > British government and stressed how shaky H's
> > > > > > > > > > > position
> > > was
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > eve of
> > > > > > > > > > > the Munich accords. In 1944 when German officers and
> > > > > political
> > > > > > > > > leaders,
> > > > > > > > > > > like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies and
> > > > > > > > > > > offered
> > > to
> > > > > > > surrender
> > > > > > > > > > > conditionally, they were unceremoniously turned
> > > > > > > > > > > down by
> > > > > > > Churchill.
> > > > > > > > > Lots
> > > > > > > > > > > of details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study
> > > > > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > German
> > > > > > > > > > > Resistance, which came from a strong anti-Nazi who
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > close
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never have
> > > > > > > > > > > insisted
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > unconditional surrender of the German people, should
> > > have
> > > > > > > avoided
> > > > > > > > > fire
> > > > > > > > > > > bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan,
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > got
> > > > > out to
> > > > > > > > > > > everyone in the world, and should have pursued a
> > > separate
> > > > > peace
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Axis.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > assure
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we would never have done what we should have done,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > sensible
> > > > > > > > > > > commanders, like Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > how
> > > > > > > > > politically
> > > > > > > > > > > stupid the U.S. government showed itself in dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > Stalin.
> > > > > > > > > That we
> > > > > > > > > > > continued to suck up to Stalin while the German
> > > > > > > > > > > army was
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the East was sheer idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it
> > > > > > > > > > > may
> > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > > > late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and
> > > Central
> > > > > > > Europe
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > even after Roosevelt continued to misrepresent the
> > > Soviet
> > > > > > > government
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > his countrymen. When I was first exposed to
> > > > > > > > > > > Revisionist
> > > > > history
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our government had
> > > spent
> > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > appeasing
> > > > > > > > > > > Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing over
> > > escaped
> > > > > > > Soviet
> > > > > > > > > > > civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > way,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > hold
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > clueless Truman less responsible for this than the
> > > Brits,
> > > > > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > > > Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still
> > > > > > > > > > > floored
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > chutpah of
> > > > > > > > > > > the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as
> > > > > > > > > > > FDR,
> > > > > screaming
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > appeasement
> > > > > > > > > > > became clear. PG
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > Paul
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > responded to me privately and briefly, but I would
> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > to
> > > > > see a
> > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > scenario laid out in which FDR does the right thing
> > > > > > > > > > > vis
> > > a
> > > > > vis
> > > > > > > Europe
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire
> > > scenario
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > make this proposition intelligible. Otherwise it's
> > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > a
> > > > > gripe
> > > > > > > > > (I've
> > > > > > > > > > > made the gripe many times myself) that he was too
> > > accepting
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > Uncle
> > > > > > > > > > > Joe. Unless there really was a practical
> > > > > > > > > > > alternative,
> > > our
> > > > > > > criticism
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > FDR falls down.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > > > > > > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The speech given by Bush in Latvia
> > > contained a
> > > > > > > > > > > questionable parallel but actually understated the
> > > > > > > > > > > evil
> > > > > deeds of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Roosevelt administration. Both FDR and Churchill
> > > > > > > > > > > lied to
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > down to 1945 about the Soviet regime, that is, they
> > > > > > > > > > > lied
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > Nazi
> > > > > > > > > > > Germany represented a real threat to us and after
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > Soviets
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > gone
> > > > > > > > > > > on the rampage in Eastern Europe and had become the
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > foreign
> > > > > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > > > > > threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to show
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > he
> > > > > ever
> > > > > > > awoke
> > > > > > > > > > > from his delusions about the Soviets or was ever
> > > > > > > > > > > willing
> > > to
> > > > > > > moderate
> > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > desire to crush the Axis totally to notice
> > > > > > > > > > > geopolitical
> > > > > > > reality.In
> > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equalled
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Republican
> > > > > > > > > > > Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > FDR's
> > > > > war
> > > > > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > > > > > than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was
> > > > > > > > > > > always
> > > too
> > > > > late
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > War, since he had no plans that he was willing to
> > > > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > containing
> > > > > > > > > > > Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about
> > > Stalin
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > democrat. PG
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Eugene Girin ;
> > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the
> > > Hitler-Stalin
> > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > President Bush said in his speech in
> > > Latvia
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > May
> > > > > > > > > 5:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The agreement at Yalta followed
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > unjust
> > > > > > > > > > > tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The parallel between Yalta and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Munich is
> > > > > > > arguable,
> > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > Chamberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Sudetenland,
> > > > > > > > > > > while Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's
> > > > > > > > > > > domination of
> > > > > Eastern
> > > > > > > > > Europe
> > > > > > > > > > > (though it's not clear to me that FDR by that point
> > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > any
> > > > > > > > > realistic
> > > > > > > > > > > choice in the matter). However, Bush's parallel
> > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > Yalta
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The
> > > > > Molotov-Ribbentrop
> > > > > > > pact
> > > > > > > > > > > didn't simply involve one power giving the go-ahead
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > power
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > occupy some country; it involved the two powers'
> > > > > > > > > > > mutual
> > > > > carving
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > that country. Stalin said Hitler could take western
> > > Poland,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Hitler
> > > > > > > > > > > said Stalin could take eastern Poland. It was an
> > > agreement
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a
> > > third
> > > > > > > country.
> > > > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > > matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in its
> > > results
> > > > > > > > > Roosevelt's
> > > > > > > > > > > deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a
> > > > > > > > > > > moral
> > > > > > > equivalence
> > > > > > > > > > > between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray
> > > America
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > moral
> > > > > > > > > > > equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is
> > > utterly
> > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > and an
> > > > > > > > > > > insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > give a
> > > d___
> > > > > care
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > such piddling details of historical truth. And he
> > > couldn't
> > > > > care
> > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > > about showing a decent respect for his own country
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > for
> > > > > > > former
> > > > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > > presidents when he is speaking as U.S. president in
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > foreign
> > > > > > > land.
> > > > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > > > > > > The main thing for Bush is to place himself, the
> > > > > > > > > > > avatar
> > > of
> > > > > pure
> > > > > > > > > > > democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and
> > > everything in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > American past.
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 16 21:58:29 2005
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:58:29 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
Message-ID: <20050517015829.GA17408@vectra>
References: <20050515153216.GA23677@vectra> <20050516211837.63765.qmail@web51510.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050516211837.63765.qmail@web51510.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1613 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 19813
Lines: 473
That's an interesting thought. Naziism without a Fuehrer. Maybe it makes
sense in Japan.
I always thought of the Fuehrerprinzip as quite basic. There's no God,
there really isn't any good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, it's
all socially constructed, so it's really the will of the Volk that
creates the human world we live in. Unfortunately, there's then nothing
to tell you what the Volk is or how to determine its will, so you've got
a problem. You solve the problem by identifying the will of the Volk
with the will of the Fuehrer and - bingo - you have a social and moral
world created in the only way such a thing can be created, by a
particular determinable will. Then that social and moral world validates
itself in opposition to every possible competing social and moral world
(created by the wills of other Voelker) by conquering, torturing,
murdering etc. all the other Voelker, thereby demonstrating beyond
dispute the absolute undeniable validity of the will of the Deutsches
Volk and thereby the absolute undeniable validity of the social and
moral world created by that will on opposition to every other will and
world.
From that point of view, Ian's point seems to be that the Japanese have
or at least then had enough identity and cohesion so Japan could be an
entity with a determinable will validating itself through conquest,
assassination of noncompliant cabinet ministers etc. without identifying
that will with the actual will of a particular man.
jk
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:18:36PM -0700, i wrote:
> The key to understanding Nazism is to understand that Japan was also Nazi. Nazism is the totalitarian suprematism of a pseudo-race.
>
> i
>
> Jim Kalb wrote:
> It seems to me a lot of the issue is whether Naziism as a specific
> movement had an enduring identity and solidity and staying power over
> against other forms that the collapse of political life into irrational
> fanaticism can have such that it's a major continuing danger and it was
> worth a great many lives and much destruction to nail it absolutely so
> that forever thereafter everybody would know to avoid it and anything
> connected to it or reminiscent of it.
>
> My own inclination is to say that Naziism isn't specially reproducible,
> it was a one-time thing, and that assuming Hitler is out of the picture
> an emphasis on root-and-branch elimination of that particular thing is
> more likely to act as a distraction from other dangers. Part of the
> reason for viewing things that way is that Naziism seems to me unstable
> as a basis for government. It needs constant extreme struggle, always
> something bigger and more dramatic, and you can't keep that up.
>
> jk
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:55:04AM -0400, la wrote:
> > I'm not saying that a less-then-unconditional surrender of Germany would
> > not have been a defeat for the Nazis. (That's four negatives in one
> > sentence, a record.) But it also would have fallen short of bringing
> > Nazi Germany into our power, with the ability to arrest and kill the top
> > Nazis, de-Nazify the country, liberate and document the death camps,
> > seize the vast stores of Nazi documents which proved to the world what
> > the Hitler regime really did and what it really was, and overall truly
> > DEFEAT Nazi Germany. Now, I'm not saying that that is necessarily
> > dispositive. If one could make an argument for an alternative strategy
> > by which the Communist conquest of Central Europe could have been
> > avoided by means of a less than German surrender, I think one would have
> > to consider that. All I'm saying is, let's look realistically and
> > honestly at what the costs of this negotiated surrender would have been.
> >
> > Of course, for those, such as Buchanan, who always diminish the evil of
> > Nazism, such considerations are irrelevant. .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > To: "la"
> > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:25.a.m.
> > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> >
> >
> > > How many actual Nazis are there? At a distance it seems that it's very
> > > easy to qualify as what's called a neonazi but there don't seem to be
> > > many even of them. There are juvenile delinquents who affect Nazi
> > > mannerisms to make themselves objectionable but that doesn't seem
> > > seriously political.
> > >
> > > Nazism seems to me like a very odd movement that depended on special
> > > conditions, a gifted leader and luck. Willful irrationality and
> > dramatic
> > > successes gave it dynamism but I don't see that it could have had much
> > > staying power. There wasn't a serious ideology there. If the whole
> > idea
> > > is "hail victory" and the will of Adolf Hitler as the supreme
> > overriding
> > > life-and-death standard then it's not clear what's there that could
> > > survive a serious reverse like the negotiated loss of a major war with
> > > millions dead.
> > >
> > > I seem to recall that Borges had a theory that Hitler wanted to go
> > down
> > > to flaming defeat. That seems right to me, because it's more grandiose
> > > than actually winning. Comedies aren't as impressive as tragedies. A
> > > negotiated disadvantageous peace is even less impressive.
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > It would have survived as a group and as an ideology. Even
> > following
> > > > the unconditional surrender of Germany, there is a continuing
> > movement
> > > > of people today still hankering after Nazism. Imagine if the Nazis
> > had
> > > > not been uprooted. They would have remained an active element in
> > German
> > > > and European politics.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > > > To: "la"
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:05.a.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But what would Nazism have looked like after getting rid of Hitler
> > and a
> > > > negotiated peace? A nondramatic realistic Nazism that gives way to
> > the
> > > > stronger, in which the will of the leader is not the highest law,
> > > > wouldn't be Nazism at all. Or so I would have thought.
> > > >
> > > > jk
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:34:36AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > > > As I remember, the Morgenthau plan was to change Germany into a
> > > > pastoral country. Obviously that was not done.
> > > > >
> > > > > But getting back to the alternative scenario, it would have meant
> > that
> > > > Nazism would survive. Yes the Nazis would have been out of power,
> > sort
> > > > of,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not definitely disagree with your idea, I'm just trying to get
> > a
> > > > picture here of whether there was an acceptable way to prevent the
> > > > Soviets from taking over Eastern Europe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; Ian
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:47.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Fw: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim: You'll have to send me your address again. I have
> > uncorrected
> > > > galleys I promised to send to your Brooklyn apartment. PG
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > To: la ; Jim Kalb ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > > ian@aea.org ; Eugene girin
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:42 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Those we would have negotiated with were enemies of the Nazis,
> > who
> > > > did not approve of what was done to the Jews, the use of
> > concentration
> > > > camps, the suspension of a state under law, etc.. In any case the
> > > > Western Allies should have insisted on the right to oversee the
> > > > transition to an anti-Nazi and anti-Communist German government.
> > > > Unconditional surrender combined in 1944 with the acceptance of the
> > > > Morgenthau Plan meant roughly that the U.S. would do to Germany what
> > > > Hitler was doing to subject nations. German would be entirely at our
> > > > mercy--and, according to the Morgenthau Plan, which Churchill and
> > FDR
> > > > both signed off on in 1944, German men would be either sterilized or
> > > > deported to Africa. Although the Soviets did not impose
> > unconditional
> > > > surrender, FDR adopted it as a means of appeasing the Soviets for
> > not
> > > > launching a major invasion of Europe in 1943. It also wedged the
> > U.S.
> > > > into a total commitment to fight the Germans to the bitter
> > end--without
> > > > requiring anything from Hitlar's former eastern allies. From what I
> > can
> > > > tell, this policy was wildly popular among Western Communists and
> > > > Communist fellow-travelers, like Harry Dexter White, for obvious
> > > > reasons. It committed us to a war without mercy against the enemies
> > of
> > > > Stalin--without denying him the right to pull out if he wanted. PG
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yeah, it would have also meant that the allies not get to
> > > > possess the vast troves of Nazi documents that gave a complete
> > history
> > > > of the inner activities of the Third Reich. That also would have
> > > > remained in German hands.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:39.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is useful. Let me try to boil it down to the
> > essentials.
> > > > >
> > > > > What we did was a combination of unconditional surrender
> > demand
> > > > and cooperation with Stalin What we should have done was drop the
> > > > unconditional surrender demand and make a separate piece with
> > Germany
> > > > and drop our alliance with Stalin. This would have made the
> > firebombing
> > > > of cities unnecessary because that firebombing was only necessary
> > from
> > > > the point of view of getting an unconditional surrender. (But is
> > that
> > > > true?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Was the unconditional surrender demand a necessary price of
> > our
> > > > alliance with Stalin? If so, why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Beyond what's been already said, can you give me a scenario
> > of
> > > > what a non-unconditional surrender (or a conditional surrender?)
> > might
> > > > have looked like? Apparently it would have meant that the allies
> > not
> > > > occupy Germany? Not occupy and liberate the death camps? Not root
> > out
> > > > the Nazis? Not engage in de-Nazification? Not execute and punish
> > the
> > > > top Nazis?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, explain how this would have prevented the Soviet
> > > > occupation of Eastern Europe. I guess we cease materiel aid to
> > Soviets,
> > > > re-arm the Germans?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:11.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I have laid out this scenario more than once.
> > There
> > > > were chances to push out Hitler repeatedly before and during the
> > War,
> > > > starting in 1938, when high-level diplomats and generals approached
> > the
> > > > British government and stressed how shaky H's position was on the
> > eve of
> > > > the Munich accords. In 1944 when German officers and political
> > leaders,
> > > > like Karl Goerdeler, approached the Allies and offered to surrender
> > > > conditionally, they were unceremoniously turned down by Churchill.
> > Lots
> > > > of details can be found in Gerhard Ritter's study of the German
> > > > Resistance, which came from a strong anti-Nazi who was close to the
> > > > Resistance Movement. The U.S. should never have insisted on
> > > > unconditional surrender of the German people, should have avoided
> > fire
> > > > bombing, approval of the Commie Morgnthau Plan, which got out to
> > > > everyone in the world, and should have pursued a separate peace with
> > the
> > > > Axis.Most of our kissing up to the Soviets was done to assure them
> > that
> > > > we would never have done what we should have done, and sensible
> > > > commanders, like Patton and Wedemayr, were appalled by how
> > politically
> > > > stupid the U.S. government showed itself in dealing with Stalin.
> > That we
> > > > continued to suck up to Stalin while the German army was on the run
> > in
> > > > the East was sheer idiocy. By the time of Yalta, it may have been
> > too
> > > > late to get the Soviet butchers out of Eastern and Central Europe
> > but
> > > > even after Roosevelt continued to misrepresent the Soviet government
> > to
> > > > his countrymen. When I was first exposed to Revisionist history of
> > the
> > > > Cold War, I gagged in disbelief. Our government had spent year
> > appeasing
> > > > Soviet butchers, even to the point of handing over escaped Soviet
> > > > civilians to be murdered in Operation Kheelhaul. By the way, I hold
> > the
> > > > clueless Truman less responsible for this than the Brits,
> > particularly
> > > > Eden and Churchill, and as you know I am still floored by the
> > chutpah of
> > > > the Republicans, who were every bit complicit as FDR, screaming
> > about
> > > > twenty years of treason as soon as the effects of their appeasement
> > > > became clear. PG
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ;
> > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry, I think I asked this before, and Paul may
> > have
> > > > responded to me privately and briefly, but I would like to see a
> > full
> > > > scenario laid out in which FDR does the right thing vis a vis Europe
> > and
> > > > Stalin. How should he have proceeded? An entire scenario is needed
> > to
> > > > make this proposition intelligible. Otherwise it's just a gripe
> > (I've
> > > > made the gripe many times myself) that he was too accepting of Uncle
> > > > Joe. Unless there really was a practical alternative, our criticism
> > of
> > > > FDR falls down.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Paul Gottfried
> > > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ;
> > > > k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:07.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The speech given by Bush in Latvia contained a
> > > > questionable parallel but actually understated the evil deeds of the
> > > > Roosevelt administration. Both FDR and Churchill lied to their
> > people
> > > > down to 1945 about the Soviet regime, that is, they lied even after
> > Nazi
> > > > Germany represented a real threat to us and after the Soviets had
> > gone
> > > > on the rampage in Eastern Europe and had become the main foreign
> > policy
> > > > threat. I have seen nothing in FDR's case to show that he ever awoke
> > > > from his delusions about the Soviets or was ever willing to moderate
> > his
> > > > desire to crush the Axis totally to notice geopolitical reality.In
> > his
> > > > irresponsible, stupid behavior he was only equalled by the
> > Republican
> > > > Party congressmen, who went along more sheepishly with FDR's war
> > policy
> > > > than did some of the Democrats. For FDR, it was always too late in
> > the
> > > > War, since he had no plans that he was willing to share about
> > containing
> > > > Soviet imperialism and could never stop lying about Stalin as a
> > great
> > > > democrat. PG
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Eugene Girin ; k.hechtman@sympatico.ca
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Bush, Yalta, and the Hitler-Stalin pact
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > President Bush said in his speech in Latvia on May
> > 5:
> > > > >
> > > > > The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust
> > > > tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> > > > >
> > > > > The parallel between Yalta and Munich is arguable,
> > since
> > > > Chamberlain at Munich accepted Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland,
> > > > while Roosevelt at Yalta accepted Stalin's domination of Eastern
> > Europe
> > > > (though it's not clear to me that FDR by that point had any
> > realistic
> > > > choice in the matter). However, Bush's parallel between Yalta and
> > the
> > > > Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is problematic. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> > > > didn't simply involve one power giving the go-ahead to another power
> > to
> > > > occupy some country; it involved the two powers' mutual carving up
> > of
> > > > that country. Stalin said Hitler could take western Poland, and
> > Hitler
> > > > said Stalin could take eastern Poland. It was an agreement between
> > two
> > > > totalitarian regimes to invade, annex, and destroy a third country.
> > No
> > > > matter how foolish, benighted, and horrible in its results
> > Roosevelt's
> > > > deal with Stalin may have been, for Bush to draw a moral equivalence
> > > > between it and the Hitler-Stalin pact is to portray America as the
> > moral
> > > > equivalent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It is utterly wrong
> > and an
> > > > insult to our country. Bush, of course, doesn't give a d___ care
> > about
> > > > such piddling details of historical truth. And he couldn't care less
> > > > about showing a decent respect for his own country and for former
> > U.S.
> > > > presidents when he is speaking as U.S. president in a foreign land.
> > No.
> > > > The main thing for Bush is to place himself, the avatar of pure
> > > > democracy, on a moral plane above everyone and everything in the
> > > > American past.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 20 19:41:10 2005
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:41:10 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Ken
Subject: Re: Liberal Moslems?
Message-ID: <20050520234110.GA8990@vectra>
References: <20050520215240.18353.qmail@web51510.mail.yahoo.com> <1116629365.2816.2037.camel@crashbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1116629365.2816.2037.camel@crashbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1617 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 13847
Lines: 305
This is the question of essentialism vs. nominalism as applied to
religions, cultures etc.
One way to put the issue is to ask whether (1) one way of being slides
indiscernibly into another, so that "Islam" is just a name that can
acquire any content at all though successive changes, or (2) there are
particular forms of life that work in particular ways that give them
considerable self-restoring stability, and one of them is Islam.
On the latter view it makes sense to treat e.g. Islam, Christianity,
liberalism and the West somewhat as characters acting in history that
are likely to stay in character. I'm sympathetic to that view. It can be
difficult to say just how far you should treat something like Islam as a
particular thing but since it seems to have been able to maintain
character in a lot of different times, places and circumstances it seems
it must be thinglike to some substantial degree.
jk
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:49:26PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> I think we're arguing about the definition of the word "is".
>
> OK, fine, the Platonic Form of the 100% theologically authentic Liberal
> Muslim can't exist in the mind of God. So what? Liberal Muslims can and
> do call themselves Muslims and (this is the important part) be accepted
> as such by other Muslims who are not themselves liberal.
>
> In the real world, people violate precepts of their faith all the time,
> people espouse incompatible ideas all the time, but if they've paid
> their dues they're allowed to keep their seat at the table anyway.
> Another thing that happens all the time is that organized religions
> quietly decide to drop or de-emphasize certain parts of their divine
> revelation -- seen any swing-state ballot initiatives to prohibit mixing
> cotton and linen lately?
>
> And besides, what do you have against phony suburban Muslims? They don't
> hijack airplanes or blow up buses or riot on the basis of
> unsubstantiated magazine articles. Long term, that's how the Muslim
> threat is going to be defanged, not by the Ann Coulter strategy of
> turning them into conservative Christians.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 17:52, i wrote:
> > Sure it's a contradiction for liberal Moslems to exist, because the
> > Koran quite clearly mandates that Moslems not be liberal and Islam is
> > based on that specific purported divine revelation. They can try, but
> > they're violating the precepts of their faith and are not authentic
> > Moslems, any more than a Nazi Christian is an authentic Christian.
> >
> > Long run, people who espouse incompatible ideas must eventually give
> > up living by or the other in any real sense. These guys' descendants
> > will either blow off the liberal stuff when they feel powerful enough
> > to do so (I note that they're apparently only liberal because in
> > India, the demographic dominance of Hindus deprives them of realistic
> > aspiration to dominance) or become phony suburban Moslems as empty as
> > liberal Christians and Reform Jews.
> >
> > If Alfarabi couldn't do it, they can't.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > Ken wrote:
> > > I note that Ken didn't speak of multiculturalism, however,
> > but, more
> > > reasonably, of religious tolerance and respect. But even
> > that is not
> > > possible for Moslems, as long as they remain believing
> > Moslems.
> >
> > Says who? I wrote the following about a gang of South Indian
> > jihadis I
> > met in Pakistan during the war:
> >
> > There's a protocol to be followed when interviewing Muslim
> > paramilitaries. I usually have to listen to a minimum of four
> > hours of religious sermons, then they sound me out to see what
> > I
> > think of the American bombing, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya
> > and
> > so on. Only after that do they relax and talk about
> > operational
> > questions. I was in the Mardan office of the Jamiat Hezbollah
> > Mujahideen a couple of weeks ago, intending to let Asif's
> > brother, Abed Bacha, their young, long-haired, bearded
> > firebrand
> > political spokesman burn himself out while I pretended to
> > listen. Then I caught something that woke me up. "Third
> > principle for peace: Peace is the way of the Muslims and
> > Christians, Hindus and Jews. Do not disrespect anyone's holy
> > books, prophets or beliefs."
> >
> > These are not your stereotypical Muslim extremists. Their
> > history is a bit different from the other mujahideen
> > organizations currently fighting in Kashmir. They were founded
> > in Hyderabad in southern India in 1924 as an ecumenical
> > preaching organization and still have 10,000 missionaries in
> > the
> > Indian states of Andra Pradesh, Karnataka and Marashtra, now
> > working underground. When the British declared their founder,
> > Sayasidi Hussein, Public Enemy Number One in the 1930s, he
> > came
> > to North-West Frontier Province and militarized the
> > organization
> > for the Quit India campaign. They've had a gun in one hand and
> > an olive branch in the other ever since. Abed says, "If
> > someone
> > is not accepting peace, there is only one way to bring them
> > back
> > to the way of peace." In the 1990s they fought a guerilla war
> > in
> > Kashmir, while organizing interfaith conferences in southern
> > India until India's Hindu extremist BJP government banned
> > their
> > preaching arm.
> >
> > I wanted to write a lot more about them but didn't because
> > they were
> > peripheral to the main story. They're religious Muslims who
> > figured out
> > the basis of liberal multiculturalism 80 years ago. All the
> > walls of
> > their office had posters and photographs from their interfaith
> > dialogue
> > conferences going back to the 1940s. I wanted to compare that
> > to the
> > Lashkar-i-Taiba office that had drawings of Islamic
> > thermonuclear
> > missiles destroying Western landmarks like the World Trade
> > Center, the
> > UN building, Big Ben and, for some reason, the Eiffel Tower.
> >
> > The JHM approached Mullah Omar in an effort to save the
> > Buddhas and
> > again over the 8 Housing Now missionaries in the Kabul jail
> > and their
> > argument was that if the Taliban wants respect for Muslim
> > minorities in
> > India and elsewhere they have to show respect in turn. If they
> > want
> > Muslim missionaries to be accepted in other countries, they
> > have to
> > accept Christian missionaries in their own country.
> >
> > There are others. Jamie Glazov has made a pet project of
> > profiling them.
> > Not just turncoats like Walid Phares and Irshad Manji but
> > people who
> > still have credibility in their own communities and are
> > pushing for
> > liberalization from the inside.
> >
> > Soheib Bencheikh, the mufti of Marseilles, is a name you
> > should have in
> > your Eurabia file. Marseilles is on track to be the first
> > majority-Muslim city in Europe and Bencheikh is young enough
> > that he'll
> > still be around when that happens. He's a guy worth watching.
> > Not only
> > has he said all the right things about the anti-Semitic
> > attacks in
> > France, but he's a committed political secularist. He opposes
> > the hijab
> > protests and he's weighed in against Sharia arbitration in
> > Ontario,
> > saying, "Canadian Muslims have full participation in the
> > process that
> > writes the civil law for all citizens -- what more do they
> > need?"
> >
> > When Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam" was translated
> > into Arabic,
> > everyone expected a Satanic Verses-style explosion, with riots
> > and
> > book-burnings and death sentences. Never happened. Canadian
> > Muslims flew
> > all over the world for face-to-face meetings with national
> > Muslim
> > leaders -- I know the one who went to Egypt -- and carried the
> > message
> > "Don't give her what she wants and don't make her bigger than
> > she is."
> > And it worked.
> >
> > Liberal Muslims exist. There aren't that many of them and not
> > many of
> > the ones that there are want to wash their dirty laundry in
> > public. But
> > it's not a contradiction in terms for them to exist.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Ken
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:37.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats wrongwith
> > > this picture?
> > >
> > > Good.
> > >
> > > Sounds like Mr. Hechtman is on what Michael Walzer calls the
> > > rational left.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ken
> > > To: la
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:16.p.m.
> > > Subject: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats
> > > wrongwith this picture?
> > >
> > > Seems to me a liberal, multicultural Secretary of State
> > could hit
> > > this one out of the park just as easily. She could tell
> > "world
> > > opinion":
> > > Are these Afghans who are getting all outraged about the
> > insult to
> > > their religion the same ones that 5 years ago were driving
> > hundreds
> > > of miles to Bamiyan and bringing picnic lunches and turning
> > the
> > > destruction of the Buddha statues into a national
> > celebration? If
> > > they are, let 'em come back when they're serious -- when
> > they've
> > > figured out that religious tolerance and respect have to
> > work both
> > > ways. I'll feel their pain then. For now, we'll find and
> > punish the
> > > interrogator who did this, not because he offended their
> > beliefs but
> > > because he offended ours.
> > > She could also tell Donald Rumsfeld:
> > > Your interrogators are creating more enemies than they're
> > helping to
> > > catch with their emotional stress mind games and that's no
> > way to win
> > > a war. Whether our subject Muslim populations should or
> > should not
> > > react that way is a different argument. I'm just telling you
> > that they
> > > *will* react that way. It's predictable and it's avoidable
> > -- so let's
> > > avoid it. Let's make both of our jobs easier instead of
> > harder.
> > > > If we lived under a different dispensation and a sane,
> > i.e.,
> > > > non-liberal, world view, here's what the U.S. Secretary of
> > State
> > > > would have said to the Moslems:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How can you people expect to be respected by the world,
> > when at
> > > > the news of a single tiny incident on the other side of
> > the world
> > > > you start tearing up cities and killing people? When 19
> > Moslem men
> > > > committed the greatest act of terrorism in history against
> > America,
> > > > killing 3,000 people and destroying a major part of our
> > greatest
> > > > city and almost destroying our Capitol Building, and when
> > millions
> > > > of Moslems around the world cheered this crime, were there
> > any
> > > > anti-Moslem riots in America? No. Yet on hearing about a
> > single
> > > > supposed incident in a military prison housing dangerous
> > Moslem
> > > > terrorists, you Moslems, including you Afghanis for whom
> > weve done
> > > > so much, act as though your whole religion has been
> > attacked by
> > > > America. So grow up, Moslems. If you want to get along
> > with America,
> > > > then see America as a whole, see our good intentions and
> > the good
> > > > things were trying to do for you. But if youre going to go
> > crazy
> > > > every time we make a mistake or every time you hear
> > something about
> > > > us you dont like, you only persuade us that any civilized
> > > > relationship with you is impossible.
> > > >
> > > > Posted by la at 10:05 AM
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat May 21 10:16:17 2005
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 10:16:17 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Paul Gottfried
Subject: Re: Liberal Moslems?
Message-ID: <20050521141617.GA12194@vectra>
References: <20050520215240.18353.qmail@web51510.mail.yahoo.com> <1116629365.2816.2037.camel@crashbox> <20050520234110.GA8990@vectra> <001401c55e03$53eed100$196010ac@paul>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001401c55e03$53eed100$196010ac@paul>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1618 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 17392
Lines: 350
One thing it means to say that there's an essential Islam, Christianity,
Judaism etc. is that there's a functional system of beliefs and
practices that works for a lot of different people in a lot of different
settings and stops working nearly so well if you change or downplay
basic concepts too much. That doesn't mean that the system won't change
at all especially in secondary ways (and those can be important) or
won't won't go dead for a while or people won't give it up and turn to
something else, as in the case of Christianity and the EU. What it means
is that the system has a lot of lives. It keeps coming back with a lot
more force than someone who thinks of religion as a contingent and
rather arbitrary concatenation of influences that's been given form in
response to circumstances and purposes and can be reformed ad infinitum
for whatever new circumstances and purposes comes along.
In the case of Islam the claim is that forceable expansion is integral
to the basic system so it can become inert and ignored for a time but it
keeps coming back especially when there are upheavals that force people
to think about what they really should be doing.
jk
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:47:57AM -0400, Paul Gottfried wrote:
> I'm a bit unclear about the essentialist characters being attached to Muslim
> and Christian civilizations. Somehow all Muslims are by definition
> Islamicists (which may be a useful stereotype at the present time in
> considering immigration into the West), while my consumerist, self-indulged
> students who spout multicultural gibberish are "Christians." I have to agree
> with Ken's nominalist approach on this matter. It is still possible to find
> practicing Muslims who have no interest in blowing us up in a Jihad--and
> before the Islamicist awakening there were lots of them--some of whom I have
> known. On the other hand, it is to me incomprehensible how the militantly
> secularist, self-rejecting Western world can still be called "Christian." Go
> tell this to the EU. PG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "Ken"
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Liberal Moslems?
>
>
> > This is the question of essentialism vs. nominalism as applied to
> > religions, cultures etc.
> >
> > One way to put the issue is to ask whether (1) one way of being slides
> > indiscernibly into another, so that "Islam" is just a name that can
> > acquire any content at all though successive changes, or (2) there are
> > particular forms of life that work in particular ways that give them
> > considerable self-restoring stability, and one of them is Islam.
> >
> > On the latter view it makes sense to treat e.g. Islam, Christianity,
> > liberalism and the West somewhat as characters acting in history that
> > are likely to stay in character. I'm sympathetic to that view. It can be
> > difficult to say just how far you should treat something like Islam as a
> > particular thing but since it seems to have been able to maintain
> > character in a lot of different times, places and circumstances it seems
> > it must be thinglike to some substantial degree.
> >
> > jk
> >
> > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:49:26PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> > > I think we're arguing about the definition of the word "is".
> > >
> > > OK, fine, the Platonic Form of the 100% theologically authentic Liberal
> > > Muslim can't exist in the mind of God. So what? Liberal Muslims can and
> > > do call themselves Muslims and (this is the important part) be accepted
> > > as such by other Muslims who are not themselves liberal.
> > >
> > > In the real world, people violate precepts of their faith all the time,
> > > people espouse incompatible ideas all the time, but if they've paid
> > > their dues they're allowed to keep their seat at the table anyway.
> > > Another thing that happens all the time is that organized religions
> > > quietly decide to drop or de-emphasize certain parts of their divine
> > > revelation -- seen any swing-state ballot initiatives to prohibit mixing
> > > cotton and linen lately?
> > >
> > > And besides, what do you have against phony suburban Muslims? They don't
> > > hijack airplanes or blow up buses or riot on the basis of
> > > unsubstantiated magazine articles. Long term, that's how the Muslim
> > > threat is going to be defanged, not by the Ann Coulter strategy of
> > > turning them into conservative Christians.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 17:52, i wrote:
> > > > Sure it's a contradiction for liberal Moslems to exist, because the
> > > > Koran quite clearly mandates that Moslems not be liberal and Islam is
> > > > based on that specific purported divine revelation. They can try, but
> > > > they're violating the precepts of their faith and are not authentic
> > > > Moslems, any more than a Nazi Christian is an authentic Christian.
> > > >
> > > > Long run, people who espouse incompatible ideas must eventually give
> > > > up living by or the other in any real sense. These guys' descendants
> > > > will either blow off the liberal stuff when they feel powerful enough
> > > > to do so (I note that they're apparently only liberal because in
> > > > India, the demographic dominance of Hindus deprives them of realistic
> > > > aspiration to dominance) or become phony suburban Moslems as empty as
> > > > liberal Christians and Reform Jews.
> > > >
> > > > If Alfarabi couldn't do it, they can't.
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > I note that Ken didn't speak of multiculturalism, however,
> > > > but, more
> > > > > reasonably, of religious tolerance and respect. But even
> > > > that is not
> > > > > possible for Moslems, as long as they remain believing
> > > > Moslems.
> > > >
> > > > Says who? I wrote the following about a gang of South Indian
> > > > jihadis I
> > > > met in Pakistan during the war:
> > > >
> > > > There's a protocol to be followed when interviewing Muslim
> > > > paramilitaries. I usually have to listen to a minimum of four
> > > > hours of religious sermons, then they sound me out to see what
> > > > I
> > > > think of the American bombing, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya
> > > > and
> > > > so on. Only after that do they relax and talk about
> > > > operational
> > > > questions. I was in the Mardan office of the Jamiat Hezbollah
> > > > Mujahideen a couple of weeks ago, intending to let Asif's
> > > > brother, Abed Bacha, their young, long-haired, bearded
> > > > firebrand
> > > > political spokesman burn himself out while I pretended to
> > > > listen. Then I caught something that woke me up. "Third
> > > > principle for peace: Peace is the way of the Muslims and
> > > > Christians, Hindus and Jews. Do not disrespect anyone's holy
> > > > books, prophets or beliefs."
> > > >
> > > > These are not your stereotypical Muslim extremists. Their
> > > > history is a bit different from the other mujahideen
> > > > organizations currently fighting in Kashmir. They were founded
> > > > in Hyderabad in southern India in 1924 as an ecumenical
> > > > preaching organization and still have 10,000 missionaries in
> > > > the
> > > > Indian states of Andra Pradesh, Karnataka and Marashtra, now
> > > > working underground. When the British declared their founder,
> > > > Sayasidi Hussein, Public Enemy Number One in the 1930s, he
> > > > came
> > > > to North-West Frontier Province and militarized the
> > > > organization
> > > > for the Quit India campaign. They've had a gun in one hand and
> > > > an olive branch in the other ever since. Abed says, "If
> > > > someone
> > > > is not accepting peace, there is only one way to bring them
> > > > back
> > > > to the way of peace." In the 1990s they fought a guerilla war
> > > > in
> > > > Kashmir, while organizing interfaith conferences in southern
> > > > India until India's Hindu extremist BJP government banned
> > > > their
> > > > preaching arm.
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to write a lot more about them but didn't because
> > > > they were
> > > > peripheral to the main story. They're religious Muslims who
> > > > figured out
> > > > the basis of liberal multiculturalism 80 years ago. All the
> > > > walls of
> > > > their office had posters and photographs from their interfaith
> > > > dialogue
> > > > conferences going back to the 1940s. I wanted to compare that
> > > > to the
> > > > Lashkar-i-Taiba office that had drawings of Islamic
> > > > thermonuclear
> > > > missiles destroying Western landmarks like the World Trade
> > > > Center, the
> > > > UN building, Big Ben and, for some reason, the Eiffel Tower.
> > > >
> > > > The JHM approached Mullah Omar in an effort to save the
> > > > Buddhas and
> > > > again over the 8 Housing Now missionaries in the Kabul jail
> > > > and their
> > > > argument was that if the Taliban wants respect for Muslim
> > > > minorities in
> > > > India and elsewhere they have to show respect in turn. If they
> > > > want
> > > > Muslim missionaries to be accepted in other countries, they
> > > > have to
> > > > accept Christian missionaries in their own country.
> > > >
> > > > There are others. Jamie Glazov has made a pet project of
> > > > profiling them.
> > > > Not just turncoats like Walid Phares and Irshad Manji but
> > > > people who
> > > > still have credibility in their own communities and are
> > > > pushing for
> > > > liberalization from the inside.
> > > >
> > > > Soheib Bencheikh, the mufti of Marseilles, is a name you
> > > > should have in
> > > > your Eurabia file. Marseilles is on track to be the first
> > > > majority-Muslim city in Europe and Bencheikh is young enough
> > > > that he'll
> > > > still be around when that happens. He's a guy worth watching.
> > > > Not only
> > > > has he said all the right things about the anti-Semitic
> > > > attacks in
> > > > France, but he's a committed political secularist. He opposes
> > > > the hijab
> > > > protests and he's weighed in against Sharia arbitration in
> > > > Ontario,
> > > > saying, "Canadian Muslims have full participation in the
> > > > process that
> > > > writes the civil law for all citizens -- what more do they
> > > > need?"
> > > >
> > > > When Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam" was translated
> > > > into Arabic,
> > > > everyone expected a Satanic Verses-style explosion, with riots
> > > > and
> > > > book-burnings and death sentences. Never happened. Canadian
> > > > Muslims flew
> > > > all over the world for face-to-face meetings with national
> > > > Muslim
> > > > leaders -- I know the one who went to Egypt -- and carried the
> > > > message
> > > > "Don't give her what she wants and don't make her bigger than
> > > > she is."
> > > > And it worked.
> > > >
> > > > Liberal Muslims exist. There aren't that many of them and not
> > > > many of
> > > > the ones that there are want to wash their dirty laundry in
> > > > public. But
> > > > it's not a contradiction in terms for them to exist.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: la
> > > > > To: Ken
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:37.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats wrongwith
> > > > > this picture?
> > > > >
> > > > > Good.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds like Mr. Hechtman is on what Michael Walzer calls the
> > > > > rational left.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Ken
> > > > > To: la
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:16.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats
> > > > > wrongwith this picture?
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems to me a liberal, multicultural Secretary of State
> > > > could hit
> > > > > this one out of the park just as easily. She could tell
> > > > "world
> > > > > opinion":
> > > > > Are these Afghans who are getting all outraged about the
> > > > insult to
> > > > > their religion the same ones that 5 years ago were driving
> > > > hundreds
> > > > > of miles to Bamiyan and bringing picnic lunches and turning
> > > > the
> > > > > destruction of the Buddha statues into a national
> > > > celebration? If
> > > > > they are, let 'em come back when they're serious -- when
> > > > they've
> > > > > figured out that religious tolerance and respect have to
> > > > work both
> > > > > ways. I'll feel their pain then. For now, we'll find and
> > > > punish the
> > > > > interrogator who did this, not because he offended their
> > > > beliefs but
> > > > > because he offended ours.
> > > > > She could also tell Donald Rumsfeld:
> > > > > Your interrogators are creating more enemies than they're
> > > > helping to
> > > > > catch with their emotional stress mind games and that's no
> > > > way to win
> > > > > a war. Whether our subject Muslim populations should or
> > > > should not
> > > > > react that way is a different argument. I'm just telling you
> > > > that they
> > > > > *will* react that way. It's predictable and it's avoidable
> > > > -- so let's
> > > > > avoid it. Let's make both of our jobs easier instead of
> > > > harder.
> > > > > > If we lived under a different dispensation and a sane,
> > > > i.e.,
> > > > > > non-liberal, world view, here's what the U.S. Secretary of
> > > > State
> > > > > > would have said to the Moslems:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can you people expect to be respected by the world,
> > > > when at
> > > > > > the news of a single tiny incident on the other side of
> > > > the world
> > > > > > you start tearing up cities and killing people? When 19
> > > > Moslem men
> > > > > > committed the greatest act of terrorism in history against
> > > > America,
> > > > > > killing 3,000 people and destroying a major part of our
> > > > greatest
> > > > > > city and almost destroying our Capitol Building, and when
> > > > millions
> > > > > > of Moslems around the world cheered this crime, were there
> > > > any
> > > > > > anti-Moslem riots in America? No. Yet on hearing about a
> > > > single
> > > > > > supposed incident in a military prison housing dangerous
> > > > Moslem
> > > > > > terrorists, you Moslems, including you Afghanis for whom
> > > > weve done
> > > > > > so much, act as though your whole religion has been
> > > > attacked by
> > > > > > America. So grow up, Moslems. If you want to get along
> > > > with America,
> > > > > > then see America as a whole, see our good intentions and
> > > > the good
> > > > > > things were trying to do for you. But if youre going to go
> > > > crazy
> > > > > > every time we make a mistake or every time you hear
> > > > something about
> > > > > > us you dont like, you only persuade us that any civilized
> > > > > > relationship with you is impossible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Posted by la at 10:05 AM
> > > >
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 22 09:13:16 2005
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 09:13:16 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Ken
Subject: Re: Liberal Moslems?
Message-ID: <20050522131316.GB18506@vectra>
References: <20050521140509.83425.qmail@web51502.mail.yahoo.com> <1116758050.1747.171.camel@crashbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1116758050.1747.171.camel@crashbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1622 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 15796
Lines: 366
Lip service is real but a religion like Islam that has demonstrated
enduring appeal and staying power is also real. That means that whatever
ways of acting and looking at things are basic to it will keep coming
back even though most people most of the time are pretty slack about the
whole thing. The bottom line is that as long as there's Islam jihad
isn't likely to disappear or become permanently unimportant through
universal slackness and reinterpretation.
jk
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:34:11AM -0400, Ken wrote:
> I don't believe this for the same reason you don't believe in written
> constitutions. The ink on paper by itself has no power if nobody can be
> bothered to enforce what it says.
>
> People with bad ideas and good behavior are the exception anyway. The
> combination of good ideas and bad behavior is a lot more common and in
> those cases do you give them a free pass for paying lip service to the
> good ideas or do you say behavior is the truth?
>
> > But this is an incomplete analysis in the case of a religion or an
> > ideology because if there is an objective world beyond people's
> > opinions about it, ideas have meanings independent of the behavior of
> > their nominal believers this week.
> >
> > I suspect this is because you are not a religious believer yourself.
> > The rest of us here are either believers or former believers.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > Ken wrote:
> > I think we're arguing about the definition of the word "is".
> >
> > OK, fine, the Platonic Form of the 100% theologically
> > authentic Liberal
> > Muslim can't exist in the mind of God. So what? Liberal
> > Muslims can and
> > do call themselves Muslims and (this is the important part) be
> > accepted
> > as such by other Muslims who are not themselves liberal.
> >
> > In the real world, people violate precepts of their faith all
> > the time,
> > people espouse incompatible ideas all the time, but if they've
> > paid
> > their dues they're allowed to keep their seat at the table
> > anyway.
> > Another thing that happens all the time is that organized
> > religions
> > quietly decide to drop or de-emphasize certain parts of their
> > divine
> > revelation -- seen any swing-state ballot initiatives to
> > prohibit mixing
> > cotton and linen lately?
> >
> > And besides, what do you have against phony suburban Muslims?
> > They don't
> > hijack airplanes or blow up buses or riot on the basis of
> > unsubstantiated magazine articles. Long term, that's how the
> > Muslim
> > threat is going to be defanged, not by the Ann Coulter
> > strategy of
> > turning them into conservative Christians.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 17:52, i wrote:
> > > Sure it's a contradiction for liberal Moslems to exist,
> > because the
> > > Koran quite clearly mandates that Moslems not be liberal and
> > Islam is
> > > based on that specific purported divine revelation. They can
> > try, but
> > > they're violating the precepts of their faith and are not
> > authentic
> > > Moslems, any more than a Nazi Christian is an authentic
> > Christian.
> > >
> > > Long run, people who espouse incompatible ideas must
> > eventually give
> > > up living by or the other in any real sense. These guys'
> > descendants
> > > will either blow off the liberal stuff when they feel
> > powerful enough
> > > to do so (I note that they're apparently only liberal
> > because in
> > > India, the demographic dominance of Hindus deprives them of
> > realistic
> > > aspiration to dominance) or become phony suburban Moslems as
> > empty as
> > > liberal Christians and Reform Jews.
> > >
> > > If Alfarabi couldn't do it, they can't.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > > Ken wrote:
> > > > I note that Ken didn't speak of multiculturalism, however,
> > > but, more
> > > > reasonably, of religious tolerance and respect. But even
> > > that is not
> > > > possible for Moslems, as long as they remain believing
> > > Moslems.
> > >
> > > Says who? I wrote the following about a gang of South Indian
> > > jihadis I
> > > met in Pakistan during the war:
> > >
> > > There's a protocol to be followed when interviewing Muslim
> > > paramilitaries. I usually have to listen to a minimum of
> > four
> > > hours of religious sermons, then they sound me out to see
> > what
> > > I
> > > think of the American bombing, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya
> > > and
> > > so on. Only after that do they relax and talk about
> > > operational
> > > questions. I was in the Mardan office of the Jamiat
> > Hezbollah
> > > Mujahideen a couple of weeks ago, intending to let Asif's
> > > brother, Abed Bacha, their young, long-haired, bearded
> > > firebrand
> > > political spokesman burn himself out while I pretended to
> > > listen. Then I caught something that woke me up. "Third
> > > principle for peace: Peace is the way of the Muslims and
> > > Christians, Hindus and Jews. Do not disrespect anyone's holy
> > > books, prophets or beliefs."
> > >
> > > These are not your stereotypical Muslim extremists. Their
> > > history is a bit different from the other mujahideen
> > > organizations currently fighting in Kashmir. They were
> > founded
> > > in Hyderabad in southern India in 1924 as an ecumenical
> > > preaching organization and still have 10,000 missionaries in
> > > the
> > > Indian states of Andra Pradesh, Karnataka and Marashtra, now
> > > working underground. When the British declared their
> > founder,
> > > Sayasidi Hussein, Public Enemy Number One in the 1930s, he
> > > came
> > > to North-West Frontier Province and militarized the
> > > organization
> > > for the Quit India campaign. They've had a gun in one hand
> > and
> > > an olive branch in the other ever since. Abed says, "If
> > > someone
> > > is not accepting peace, there is only one way to bring them
> > > back
> > > to the way of peace." In the 1990s they fought a guerilla
> > war
> > > in
> > > Kashmir, while organizing interfaith conferences in southern
> > > India until India's Hindu extremist BJP government banned
> > > their
> > > preaching arm.
> > >
> > > I wanted to write a lot more about them but didn't because
> > > they were
> > > peripheral to the main story. They're religious Muslims who
> > > figured out
> > > the basis of liberal multiculturalism 80 years ago. All the
> > > walls of
> > > their office had posters and photographs from their
> > interfaith
> > > dialogue
> > > conferences going back to the 1940s. I wanted to compare
> > that
> > > to the
> > > Lashkar-i-Taiba office that had drawings of Islamic
> > > thermonuclear
> > > missiles destroying Western landmarks like the World Trade
> > > Center, the
> > > UN building, Big Ben and, for some reason, the Eiffel Tower.
> > >
> > > The JHM approached Mullah Omar in an effort to save the
> > > Buddhas and
> > > again over the 8 Housing Now missionaries in the Kabul jail
> > > and their
> > > argument was that if the Taliban wants respect for Muslim
> > > minorities in
> > > India and elsewhere they have to show respect in turn. If
> > they
> > > want
> > > Muslim missionaries to be accepted in other countries, they
> > > have to
> > > accept Christian missionaries in their own country.
> > >
> > > There are others. Jamie Glazov has made a pet project of
> > > profiling them.
> > > Not just turncoats like Walid Phares and Irshad Manji but
> > > people who
> > > still have credibility in their own communities and are
> > > pushing for
> > > liberalization from the inside.
> > >
> > > Soheib Bencheikh, the mufti of Marseilles, is a name you
> > > should have in
> > > your Eurabia file. Marseilles is on track to be the first
> > > majority-Muslim city in Europe and Bencheikh is young enough
> > > that he'll
> > > still be around when that happens. He's a guy worth
> > watching.
> > > Not only
> > > has he said all the right things about the anti-Semitic
> > > attacks in
> > > France, but he's a committed political secularist. He
> > opposes
> > > the hijab
> > > protests and he's weighed in against Sharia arbitration in
> > > Ontario,
> > > saying, "Canadian Muslims have full participation in the
> > > process that
> > > writes the civil law for all citizens -- what more do they
> > > need?"
> > >
> > > When Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam" was translated
> > > into Arabic,
> > > everyone expected a Satanic Verses-style explosion, with
> > riots
> > > and
> > > book-burnings and death sentences. Never happened. Canadian
> > > Muslims flew
> > > all over the world for face-to-face meetings with national
> > > Muslim
> > > leaders -- I know the one who went to Egypt -- and carried
> > the
> > > message
> > > "Don't give her what she wants and don't make her bigger
> > than
> > > she is."
> > > And it worked.
> > >
> > > Liberal Muslims exist. There aren't that many of them and
> > not
> > > many of
> > > the ones that there are want to wash their dirty laundry in
> > > public. But
> > > it's not a contradiction in terms for them to exist.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: la
> > > > To: Ken
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:37.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats
> > wrongwith
> > > > this picture?
> > > >
> > > > Good.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like Mr. Hechtman is on what Michael Walzer calls
> > the
> > > > rational left.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Ken
> > > > To: la
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:16.p.m.
> > > > Subject: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats
> > > > wrongwith this picture?
> > > >
> > > > Seems to me a liberal, multicultural Secretary of State
> > > could hit
> > > > this one out of the park just as easily. She could tell
> > > "world
> > > > opinion":
> > > > Are these Afghans who are getting all outraged about the
> > > insult to
> > > > their religion the same ones that 5 years ago were driving
> > > hundreds
> > > > of miles to Bamiyan and bringing picnic lunches and
> > turning
> > > the
> > > > destruction of the Buddha statues into a national
> > > celebration? If
> > > > they are, let 'em come back when they're serious -- when
> > > they've
> > > > figured out that religious tolerance and respect have to
> > > work both
> > > > ways. I'll feel their pain then. For now, we'll find and
> > > punish the
> > > > interrogator who did this, not because he offended their
> > > beliefs but
> > > > because he offended ours.
> > > > She could also tell Donald Rumsfeld:
> > > > Your interrogators are creating more enemies than they're
> > > helping to
> > > > catch with their emotional stress mind games and that's no
> > > way to win
> > > > a war. Whether our subject Muslim populations should or
> > > should not
> > > > react that way is a different argument. I'm just telling
> > you
> > > that they
> > > > *will* react that way. It's predictable and it's avoidable
> > > -- so let's
> > > > avoid it. Let's make both of our jobs easier instead of
> > > harder.
> > > > > If we lived under a different dispensation and a sane,
> > > i.e.,
> > > > > non-liberal, world view, here's what the U.S. Secretary
> > of
> > > State
> > > > > would have said to the Moslems:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How can you people expect to be respected by the world,
> > > when at
> > > > > the news of a single tiny incident on the other side of
> > > the world
> > > > > you start tearing up cities and killing people? When 19
> > > Moslem men
> > > > > committed the greatest act of terrorism in history
> > against
> > > America,
> > > > > killing 3,000 people and destroying a major part of our
> > > greatest
> > > > > city and almost destroying our Capitol Building, and
> > when
> > > millions
> > > > > of Moslems around the world cheered this crime, were
> > there
> > > any
> > > > > anti-Moslem riots in America? No. Yet on hearing about a
> > > single
> > > > > supposed incident in a military prison housing dangerous
> > > Moslem
> > > > > terrorists, you Moslems, including you Afghanis for whom
> > > weve done
> > > > > so much, act as though your whole religion has been
> > > attacked by
> > > > > America. So grow up, Moslems. If you want to get along
> > > with America,
> > > > > then see America as a whole, see our good intentions and
> > > the good
> > > > > things were trying to do for you. But if youre going to
> > go
> > > crazy
> > > > > every time we make a mistake or every time you hear
> > > something about
> > > > > us you dont like, you only persuade us that any
> > civilized
> > > > > relationship with you is impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Posted by la at 10:05 AM
> > >
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 22 14:15:44 2005
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:15:44 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Liberal Moslems?
Message-ID: <20050522181544.GA19334@vectra>
References: <20050521141617.GA12194@vectra> <20050522173503.58987.qmail@web51507.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050522173503.58987.qmail@web51507.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1623 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 16913
Lines: 368
I agree that the fact that the text of the Koran is said to be the
uncreated word of God adds an additional degree of force and literalness
to its commands. But then you have to explain why there have been so
many Muslims in so many places for so long who take the whole thing
seriously. For that I think the substance of the religion has to have
some special qualities that give it a deep widespread appeal and so give
people a substantive reason to keep going back to its basic patterns.
jk
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 10:35:03AM -0700, i wrote:
> That's kind of Jungian: there is this deep archetype and it recurs. But some religions, like Islam, have explicit formulas of definition that are even clearer than that. You cannot believe Mohammed is the prophet of God without believing in jihad because that's what Mohammed said.
>
> Ian
>
> Jim Kalb wrote:
> One thing it means to say that there's an essential Islam, Christianity,
> Judaism etc. is that there's a functional system of beliefs and
> practices that works for a lot of different people in a lot of different
> settings and stops working nearly so well if you change or downplay
> basic concepts too much. That doesn't mean that the system won't change
> at all especially in secondary ways (and those can be important) or
> won't won't go dead for a while or people won't give it up and turn to
> something else, as in the case of Christianity and the EU. What it means
> is that the system has a lot of lives. It keeps coming back with a lot
> more force than someone who thinks of religion as a contingent and
> rather arbitrary concatenation of influences that's been given form in
> response to circumstances and purposes and can be reformed ad infinitum
> for whatever new circumstances and purposes comes along.
>
> In the case of Islam the claim is that forceable expansion is integral
> to the basic system so it can become inert and ignored for a time but it
> keeps coming back especially when there are upheavals that force people
> to think about what they really should be doing.
>
> jk
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:47:57AM -0400, Paul Gottfried wrote:
> > I'm a bit unclear about the essentialist characters being attached to Muslim
> > and Christian civilizations. Somehow all Muslims are by definition
> > Islamicists (which may be a useful stereotype at the present time in
> > considering immigration into the West), while my consumerist, self-indulged
> > students who spout multicultural gibberish are "Christians." I have to agree
> > with Ken's nominalist approach on this matter. It is still possible to find
> > practicing Muslims who have no interest in blowing us up in a Jihad--and
> > before the Islamicist awakening there were lots of them--some of whom I have
> > known. On the other hand, it is to me incomprehensible how the militantly
> > secularist, self-rejecting Western world can still be called "Christian." Go
> > tell this to the EU. PG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Kalb"
> > To: "Ken"
> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Liberal Moslems?
> >
> >
> > > This is the question of essentialism vs. nominalism as applied to
> > > religions, cultures etc.
> > >
> > > One way to put the issue is to ask whether (1) one way of being slides
> > > indiscernibly into another, so that "Islam" is just a name that can
> > > acquire any content at all though successive changes, or (2) there are
> > > particular forms of life that work in particular ways that give them
> > > considerable self-restoring stability, and one of them is Islam.
> > >
> > > On the latter view it makes sense to treat e.g. Islam, Christianity,
> > > liberalism and the West somewhat as characters acting in history that
> > > are likely to stay in character. I'm sympathetic to that view. It can be
> > > difficult to say just how far you should treat something like Islam as a
> > > particular thing but since it seems to have been able to maintain
> > > character in a lot of different times, places and circumstances it seems
> > > it must be thinglike to some substantial degree.
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:49:26PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> > > > I think we're arguing about the definition of the word "is".
> > > >
> > > > OK, fine, the Platonic Form of the 100% theologically authentic Liberal
> > > > Muslim can't exist in the mind of God. So what? Liberal Muslims can and
> > > > do call themselves Muslims and (this is the important part) be accepted
> > > > as such by other Muslims who are not themselves liberal.
> > > >
> > > > In the real world, people violate precepts of their faith all the time,
> > > > people espouse incompatible ideas all the time, but if they've paid
> > > > their dues they're allowed to keep their seat at the table anyway.
> > > > Another thing that happens all the time is that organized religions
> > > > quietly decide to drop or de-emphasize certain parts of their divine
> > > > revelation -- seen any swing-state ballot initiatives to prohibit mixing
> > > > cotton and linen lately?
> > > >
> > > > And besides, what do you have against phony suburban Muslims? They don't
> > > > hijack airplanes or blow up buses or riot on the basis of
> > > > unsubstantiated magazine articles. Long term, that's how the Muslim
> > > > threat is going to be defanged, not by the Ann Coulter strategy of
> > > > turning them into conservative Christians.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 17:52, i wrote:
> > > > > Sure it's a contradiction for liberal Moslems to exist, because the
> > > > > Koran quite clearly mandates that Moslems not be liberal and Islam is
> > > > > based on that specific purported divine revelation. They can try, but
> > > > > they're violating the precepts of their faith and are not authentic
> > > > > Moslems, any more than a Nazi Christian is an authentic Christian.
> > > > >
> > > > > Long run, people who espouse incompatible ideas must eventually give
> > > > > up living by or the other in any real sense. These guys' descendants
> > > > > will either blow off the liberal stuff when they feel powerful enough
> > > > > to do so (I note that they're apparently only liberal because in
> > > > > India, the demographic dominance of Hindus deprives them of realistic
> > > > > aspiration to dominance) or become phony suburban Moslems as empty as
> > > > > liberal Christians and Reform Jews.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Alfarabi couldn't do it, they can't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > > I note that Ken didn't speak of multiculturalism, however,
> > > > > but, more
> > > > > > reasonably, of religious tolerance and respect. But even
> > > > > that is not
> > > > > > possible for Moslems, as long as they remain believing
> > > > > Moslems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Says who? I wrote the following about a gang of South Indian
> > > > > jihadis I
> > > > > met in Pakistan during the war:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a protocol to be followed when interviewing Muslim
> > > > > paramilitaries. I usually have to listen to a minimum of four
> > > > > hours of religious sermons, then they sound me out to see what
> > > > > I
> > > > > think of the American bombing, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya
> > > > > and
> > > > > so on. Only after that do they relax and talk about
> > > > > operational
> > > > > questions. I was in the Mardan office of the Jamiat Hezbollah
> > > > > Mujahideen a couple of weeks ago, intending to let Asif's
> > > > > brother, Abed Bacha, their young, long-haired, bearded
> > > > > firebrand
> > > > > political spokesman burn himself out while I pretended to
> > > > > listen. Then I caught something that woke me up. "Third
> > > > > principle for peace: Peace is the way of the Muslims and
> > > > > Christians, Hindus and Jews. Do not disrespect anyone's holy
> > > > > books, prophets or beliefs."
> > > > >
> > > > > These are not your stereotypical Muslim extremists. Their
> > > > > history is a bit different from the other mujahideen
> > > > > organizations currently fighting in Kashmir. They were founded
> > > > > in Hyderabad in southern India in 1924 as an ecumenical
> > > > > preaching organization and still have 10,000 missionaries in
> > > > > the
> > > > > Indian states of Andra Pradesh, Karnataka and Marashtra, now
> > > > > working underground. When the British declared their founder,
> > > > > Sayasidi Hussein, Public Enemy Number One in the 1930s, he
> > > > > came
> > > > > to North-West Frontier Province and militarized the
> > > > > organization
> > > > > for the Quit India campaign. They've had a gun in one hand and
> > > > > an olive branch in the other ever since. Abed says, "If
> > > > > someone
> > > > > is not accepting peace, there is only one way to bring them
> > > > > back
> > > > > to the way of peace." In the 1990s they fought a guerilla war
> > > > > in
> > > > > Kashmir, while organizing interfaith conferences in southern
> > > > > India until India's Hindu extremist BJP government banned
> > > > > their
> > > > > preaching arm.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wanted to write a lot more about them but didn't because
> > > > > they were
> > > > > peripheral to the main story. They're religious Muslims who
> > > > > figured out
> > > > > the basis of liberal multiculturalism 80 years ago. All the
> > > > > walls of
> > > > > their office had posters and photographs from their interfaith
> > > > > dialogue
> > > > > conferences going back to the 1940s. I wanted to compare that
> > > > > to the
> > > > > Lashkar-i-Taiba office that had drawings of Islamic
> > > > > thermonuclear
> > > > > missiles destroying Western landmarks like the World Trade
> > > > > Center, the
> > > > > UN building, Big Ben and, for some reason, the Eiffel Tower.
> > > > >
> > > > > The JHM approached Mullah Omar in an effort to save the
> > > > > Buddhas and
> > > > > again over the 8 Housing Now missionaries in the Kabul jail
> > > > > and their
> > > > > argument was that if the Taliban wants respect for Muslim
> > > > > minorities in
> > > > > India and elsewhere they have to show respect in turn. If they
> > > > > want
> > > > > Muslim missionaries to be accepted in other countries, they
> > > > > have to
> > > > > accept Christian missionaries in their own country.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are others. Jamie Glazov has made a pet project of
> > > > > profiling them.
> > > > > Not just turncoats like Walid Phares and Irshad Manji but
> > > > > people who
> > > > > still have credibility in their own communities and are
> > > > > pushing for
> > > > > liberalization from the inside.
> > > > >
> > > > > Soheib Bencheikh, the mufti of Marseilles, is a name you
> > > > > should have in
> > > > > your Eurabia file. Marseilles is on track to be the first
> > > > > majority-Muslim city in Europe and Bencheikh is young enough
> > > > > that he'll
> > > > > still be around when that happens. He's a guy worth watching.
> > > > > Not only
> > > > > has he said all the right things about the anti-Semitic
> > > > > attacks in
> > > > > France, but he's a committed political secularist. He opposes
> > > > > the hijab
> > > > > protests and he's weighed in against Sharia arbitration in
> > > > > Ontario,
> > > > > saying, "Canadian Muslims have full participation in the
> > > > > process that
> > > > > writes the civil law for all citizens -- what more do they
> > > > > need?"
> > > > >
> > > > > When Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam" was translated
> > > > > into Arabic,
> > > > > everyone expected a Satanic Verses-style explosion, with riots
> > > > > and
> > > > > book-burnings and death sentences. Never happened. Canadian
> > > > > Muslims flew
> > > > > all over the world for face-to-face meetings with national
> > > > > Muslim
> > > > > leaders -- I know the one who went to Egypt -- and carried the
> > > > > message
> > > > > "Don't give her what she wants and don't make her bigger than
> > > > > she is."
> > > > > And it worked.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liberal Muslims exist. There aren't that many of them and not
> > > > > many of
> > > > > the ones that there are want to wash their dirty laundry in
> > > > > public. But
> > > > > it's not a contradiction in terms for them to exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: la
> > > > > > To: Ken
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:37.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: Re: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats wrongwith
> > > > > > this picture?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds like Mr. Hechtman is on what Michael Walzer calls the
> > > > > > rational left.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Ken
> > > > > > To: la
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:16.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: American guilt and Moslem rage: whats
> > > > > > wrongwith this picture?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems to me a liberal, multicultural Secretary of State
> > > > > could hit
> > > > > > this one out of the park just as easily. She could tell
> > > > > "world
> > > > > > opinion":
> > > > > > Are these Afghans who are getting all outraged about the
> > > > > insult to
> > > > > > their religion the same ones that 5 years ago were driving
> > > > > hundreds
> > > > > > of miles to Bamiyan and bringing picnic lunches and turning
> > > > > the
> > > > > > destruction of the Buddha statues into a national
> > > > > celebration? If
> > > > > > they are, let 'em come back when they're serious -- when
> > > > > they've
> > > > > > figured out that religious tolerance and respect have to
> > > > > work both
> > > > > > ways. I'll feel their pain then. For now, we'll find and
> > > > > punish the
> > > > > > interrogator who did this, not because he offended their
> > > > > beliefs but
> > > > > > because he offended ours.
> > > > > > She could also tell Donald Rumsfeld:
> > > > > > Your interrogators are creating more enemies than they're
> > > > > helping to
> > > > > > catch with their emotional stress mind games and that's no
> > > > > way to win
> > > > > > a war. Whether our subject Muslim populations should or
> > > > > should not
> > > > > > react that way is a different argument. I'm just telling you
> > > > > that they
> > > > > > *will* react that way. It's predictable and it's avoidable
> > > > > -- so let's
> > > > > > avoid it. Let's make both of our jobs easier instead of
> > > > > harder.
> > > > > > > If we lived under a different dispensation and a sane,
> > > > > i.e.,
> > > > > > > non-liberal, world view, here's what the U.S. Secretary of
> > > > > State
> > > > > > > would have said to the Moslems:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How can you people expect to be respected by the world,
> > > > > when at
> > > > > > > the news of a single tiny incident on the other side of
> > > > > the world
> > > > > > > you start tearing up cities and killing people? When 19
> > > > > Moslem men
> > > > > > > committed the greatest act of terrorism in history against
> > > > > America,
> > > > > > > killing 3,000 people and destroying a major part of our
> > > > > greatest
> > > > > > > city and almost destroying our Capitol Building, and when
> > > > > millions
> > > > > > > of Moslems around the world cheered this crime, were there
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > anti-Moslem riots in America? No. Yet on hearing about a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > supposed incident in a military prison housing dangerous
> > > > > Moslem
> > > > > > > terrorists, you Moslems, including you Afghanis for whom
> > > > > weve done
> > > > > > > so much, act as though your whole religion has been
> > > > > attacked by
> > > > > > > America. So grow up, Moslems. If you want to get along
> > > > > with America,
> > > > > > > then see America as a whole, see our good intentions and
> > > > > the good
> > > > > > > things were trying to do for you. But if youre going to go
> > > > > crazy
> > > > > > > every time we make a mistake or every time you hear
> > > > > something about
> > > > > > > us you dont like, you only persuade us that any civilized
> > > > > > > relationship with you is impossible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Posted by la at 10:05 AM
> > > > >
> > >
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 31 08:13:09 2005
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:13:09 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Must limited liberalism turn into absolute liberalism?
Message-ID: <20050531121309.GA2608@vectra>
References: <002801c565d5$84223180$5d17fea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <002801c565d5$84223180$5d17fea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1630 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1735
Lines: 29
I'm inclined to say that in modern society, which tends to rationalize
things and make them explicit, the nonliberal values must be not only
primary but explicit and guarded by some definite authoritative
institution. Note that market values are made explicit and guarded by
financial and business interests, and rational bureaucratic values by
the machinery of government (in each case with the aid of various
theoreticians, appendages and hangers-on).
jk
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:40:08AM -0400, la wrote:
> I've drafted this for VFR. Does the second paragraph accurately reflect your views?
>
>
> Must limited liberalism turn into absolute liberalism?
>
> Here is a good statement by Jim Kalb from VFR's first week, April 2002, distinguishing between contemporary liberalism, which makes liberal values such as tolerance and equal freedom the "operative final standards for the political system"; and classical liberalism, which "had not yet forbidden public recognition of substantive goods like virtue and religion." While he says that the classical liberalism looks better, he does not promote it, since, he says, it inevitably changes into the modern variety.
> Thus I suspect that Mr. Kalb would disagree with my notion that a stable traditional society with liberal values would be possible, so long as the liberal values are not the primary values of the society but operated within a traditional and particularist framework. His position seems to be that once liberal values are recognized, they will eventually become the operative final standards for the political system: classical liberalism must change into modern liberalism over time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jun 5 05:34:10 2005
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 05:34:10 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: Ken
Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
Message-ID: <20050605093410.GA3708@vectra>
References: <052301c5693d$34f63780$fc2dfea9@h6l3p> <1117915693.17082.200.camel@crashbox> <055e01c56944$b05e7480$fc2dfea9@h6l3p> <1117919731.17000.239.camel@crashbox> <05ac01c5694e$a1db5a40$fc2dfea9@h6l3p> <1117928231.16944.380.camel@crashbox> <062201c5696b$c46ca9c0$fc2dfea9@h6l3p> <1117936644.17000.384.camel@crashbox> <063401c56976$6bf98820$fc2dfea9@h6l3p> <1117938700.17082.422.camel@crashbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1117938700.17082.422.camel@crashbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1637 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 16558
Lines: 339
If Catholics are part of the religous right then at least one wing of
the RR thinks natural law is enough to cover the point. It's at odds
with a good life here and now as the good life can be understood without
reference to any specific revelation. To attempt to deal with sex by a
sort of technical and administrative analysis of the kind the Consumer
Products Safety Board might apply to microwave emissions seems inhuman
and bizarre.
jk
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:31:40PM -0400, Ken wrote:
> Absolutely. The religious right believes promiscuity is bad because the
> Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe doesn't like it, never has and
> never will. The left believes it's good or bad depending on the
> consequences on this earth, in this lifetime, and those are going to
> change over time. The left's morality comes from the ground, not from
> the sky.
>
> On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 22:29, la wrote:
> > Ok, but even if you're going only that far, even if you're only
> > positing that the right believes that it believes in something real,
> > you are acknowledging that the right holds itself to some sort of
> > standards that it sees as coming from outside itself,
> > non-opportunistic standards, and therefore that there is a different
> > moral structure on the right and on the left.
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message ----
> > From: "Ken"
> > To: "la"
> > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:57.p.m. Subject:
> > Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> >
> > > Nice try. I'll go as far as "the right believes it believes in
> > > something real" but that's it.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 21:13, la wrote:
> > > > > If you're a conservative, sure, you don't want to use
> > > > > opportunistic arguments for eternal values and standards. But if
> > > > > you're a liberal then most of your values and standards are
> > > > > opportunistic anyway, so you can get away with it.
> > > >
> > > > That's a pretty interesting statement coming from a guy of the
> > left.
> > > > Does this indicate a view that the right believes in something
> > real
> > > > that the left does not believe in?
> > > >
> > > > Your other comments, about the ever-changing attitudes of the
> > left,
> > > > are also interesting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > To: "la"
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:37.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > >
> > > > > If you're a conservative, sure, you don't want to use
> > > > > opportunistic arguments for eternal values and standards. But if
> > > > > you're a liberal then most of your values and standards are
> > > > > opportunistic anyway, so you can get away with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's 1945 and there's no penicillin and there's no birth
> > > > > control pills, you can say, "Look, promiscuity is bad because it
> > > > > has some permanent consequences we don't yet have a technical
> > fix
> > > > > for." In 1965 you can advocate the Sexual Revolution and then in
> > > > > 1985 you can say we need to dial it back for a while, and it'll
> > > > > all be consistent.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why I was venting about the influence of internet porn on
> > > > > pre-teens a few days ago. It's not yet time to be quite that
> > > > > relaxed about AIDS. The porn-peddlers aren't -- they make their
> > > > > stable of actors get tested every month and even then accidents
> > > > > happen. But when you're twelve, you don't know that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another example: The number one gay cause in 1983 was keeping
> > the
> > > > > bath-houses open to make it easier to have hundreds of anonymous
> > > > > sex partners per year. Twenty years later, what's the number-one
> > > > > gay cause? It's not re-opening the bath-houses. It's something
> > > > > that'll make it easier to have just one permanent and exclusive
> > > > > partner. This isn't a coincidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 17:44, la wrote:
> > > > > > > To a lesser extent the religious right has painted the same
> > > > > > > picture, using the fear of AIDS as an argument against
> > > > > > > heterosexual promiscuity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which supports my general view that opportunistic, indirect
> > > > > > arguments do not work. If you're against promiscuity, then
> > make
> > > > > > your best case against it. Don't opportunistically use some
> > > > > > disease that happens to be current.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:15.p.m.
> > > > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wouldn't say the left is ignoring it. I know about it from
> > a
> > > > > > > leftwing source (probably Worldwatch). As far as advice, the
> > > > > > > left will hand out condoms and advise that they be used.
> > > > > > > That's about it. We're not going to tell married couples
> > > > > > > "don't have this kind of sex, only have that kind of sex".
> > In
> > > > > > > the absence of artificial birth control, we're definitely
> > not
> > > > > > > going to tell married couples, "don't have non-procreative
> > > > > > > sex, only have procreative sex."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The participants are not wrong that the left has painted a
> > > > > > > picture of AIDS as "everybody's problem". The reductio ad
> > > > > > > absurdum of this is lesbians promoting the (100%
> > unnecessary)
> > > > > > > practice of oral sex through a latex dental dam, just so
> > they
> > > > > > > don't feel left out. Glazov is spot-on about the radical
> > > > > > > lesbian feminists in the early AIDS organizations. I
> > remember
> > > > > > > seeing them in ACT-UP in 1988 and asking why they were there
> > > > > > > and in leadership positions when AIDS isn't their problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To a lesser extent the religious right has painted the same
> > > > > > > picture, using the fear of AIDS as an argument against
> > > > > > > heterosexual promiscuity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 16:33, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well, I don't know what to make of this. If heterosexual
> > > > > > > > anal penetration is a major factor in the spread of
> > African
> > > > > > > > HIV, is it the case that both the "left" and the "right"
> > > > > > > > are ignoring it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The participants in the FP symposium laid great stress on
> > > > > > > > the idea that the spread was through dirty needles and
> > > > > > > > homosexual anal sex. Therefore, they said, countermeasures
> > > > > > > > must focus on those two methods of transmission, not on
> > > > > > > > heterosexual sex. They said it was a huge waste of money
> > to
> > > > > > > > disseminate condoms and advice to heterosexual people.
> > But
> > > > > > > > has that advice concerned anal intercourse? If it has,
> > > > > > > > then the expenditures in that area would not appear to
> > have
> > > > > > > > been a complete waste. If they have not, then their basic
> > > > > > > > argument holds, with the caveat that they also have to
> > > > > > > > address certain heterosexual practices as well as
> > > > > > > > homosexual practices and dirty needles.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June
> > > > > > > > 04, 2005 4:08.p.m. Subject: Re: The African heterosexual
> > > > > > > > AIDS myth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It wasn't. Which was why I brought it up. If you have
> > > > > > > > > transmission between heterosexual people through a
> > > > > > > > > practice generally associated with homosexuals, I still
> > > > > > > > > define that as "heterosexual transmission".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The left has a blind spot about barefoot doctors. We
> > like
> > > > > > > > > them because they're foreign and folksy and
> > > > > > > > > appropriate-technology and well-meaning and all those
> > > > > > > > > good things. We really don't want to think that they
> > > > > > > > > might have killed more people than Hitler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The right has a blind spot that assumes "heterosexual"
> > > > > > > > > means the same thing in all cultures as it did in
> > > > > > > > > pre-Kinsey America. If heterosexuals do the same things
> > > > > > > > > that homosexuals do, they can transmit the same virus
> > > > > > > > > that homosexuals transmit doing it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 15:40, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) More heterosexual anal intercourse, including
> > among
> > > > > > > > > > > married couples
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't believe this factor was discussed in the FP
> > > > > > > > > > symposium.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday,
> > June
> > > > > > > > > > 04, 2005 3:06.p.m. Subject: Re: The African
> > heterosexual
> > > > > > > > > > AIDS myth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't have thought that particular fact was all
> > > > > > > > > > > that obscure. The standard explanation of why AIDS
> > > > > > > > > > > spreads faster in Africa than in any other
> > > > > > > > > > > heterosexual population is
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) More heterosexual anal intercourse, including
> > among
> > > > > > > > > > > married couples 2) Less sexual exclusivity, even
> > among
> > > > > > > > > > > married couples 3) Less availability of condoms
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, if Glazov is looking for a mea culpa on the
> > > > > > > > > > > bath-house debate, he'll find it in Randy Shilts'
> > "And
> > > > > > > > > > > The Band Played On", the definitive book on the
> > early
> > > > > > > > > > > days of AIDS in America. The really useful thing
> > > > > > > > > > > Shilts does is track who knew what with how many
> > > > > > > > > > > people had been diagnosed and how many had died at
> > > > > > > > > > > that time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 14:33, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They're missing an important point. In Africa,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anal sex is the most common form of birth
> > control.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've said it before and I'll say it again, is
> > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > anything Hechtman doesn't know?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 5:34 AM
> To: Ken
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:57.p.m. Subject:
> > > Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > >
> > > > Nice try. I'll go as far as "the right believes it believes in
> > > > something real" but that's it.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 21:13, la wrote:
> > > > > > If you're a conservative, sure, you don't want to use
> > > > > > opportunistic arguments for eternal values and standards. But if
> > > > > > you're a liberal then most of your values and standards are
> > > > > > opportunistic anyway, so you can get away with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a pretty interesting statement coming from a guy of the
> > > left.
> > > > > Does this indicate a view that the right believes in something
> > > real
> > > > > that the left does not believe in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your other comments, about the ever-changing attitudes of the
> > > left,
> > > > > are also interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:37.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you're a conservative, sure, you don't want to use
> > > > > > opportunistic arguments for eternal values and standards. But if
> > > > > > you're a liberal then most of your values and standards are
> > > > > > opportunistic anyway, so you can get away with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it's 1945 and there's no penicillin and there's no birth
> > > > > > control pills, you can say, "Look, promiscuity is bad because it
> > > > > > has some permanent consequences we don't yet have a technical
> > > fix
> > > > > > for." In 1965 you can advocate the Sexual Revolution and then in
> > > > > > 1985 you can say we need to dial it back for a while, and it'll
> > > > > > all be consistent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's why I was venting about the influence of internet porn on
> > > > > > pre-teens a few days ago. It's not yet time to be quite that
> > > > > > relaxed about AIDS. The porn-peddlers aren't -- they make their
> > > > > > stable of actors get tested every month and even then accidents
> > > > > > happen. But when you're twelve, you don't know that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another example: The number one gay cause in 1983 was keeping
> > > the
> > > > > > bath-houses open to make it easier to have hundreds of anonymous
> > > > > > sex partners per year. Twenty years later, what's the number-one
> > > > > > gay cause? It's not re-opening the bath-houses. It's something
> > > > > > that'll make it easier to have just one permanent and exclusive
> > > > > > partner. This isn't a coincidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 17:44, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > To a lesser extent the religious right has painted the same
> > > > > > > > picture, using the fear of AIDS as an argument against
> > > > > > > > heterosexual promiscuity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which supports my general view that opportunistic, indirect
> > > > > > > arguments do not work. If you're against promiscuity, then
> > > make
> > > > > > > your best case against it. Don't opportunistically use some
> > > > > > > disease that happens to be current.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:15.p.m.
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wouldn't say the left is ignoring it. I know about it from
> > > a
> > > > > > > > leftwing source (probably Worldwatch). As far as advice, the
> > > > > > > > left will hand out condoms and advise that they be used.
> > > > > > > > That's about it. We're not going to tell married couples
> > > > > > > > "don't have this kind of sex, only have that kind of sex".
> > > In
> > > > > > > > the absence of artificial birth control, we're definitely
> > > not
> > > > > > > > going to tell married couples, "don't have non-procreative
> > > > > > > > sex, only have procreative sex."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The participants are not wrong that the left has painted a
> > > > > > > > picture of AIDS as "everybody's problem". The reductio ad
> > > > > > > > absurdum of this is lesbians promoting the (100%
> > > unnecessary)
> > > > > > > > practice of oral sex through a latex dental dam, just so
> > > they
> > > > > > > > don't feel left out. Glazov is spot-on about the radical
> > > > > > > > lesbian feminists in the early AIDS organizations. I
> > > remember
> > > > > > > > seeing them in ACT-UP in 1988 and asking why they were there
> > > > > > > > and in leadership positions when AIDS isn't their problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To a lesser extent the religious right has painted the same
> > > > > > > > picture, using the fear of AIDS as an argument against
> > > > > > > > heterosexual promiscuity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 16:33, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Well, I don't know what to make of this. If heterosexual
> > > > > > > > > anal penetration is a major factor in the spread of
> > > African
> > > > > > > > > HIV, is it the case that both the "left" and the "right"
> > > > > > > > > are ignoring it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The participants in the FP symposium laid great stress on
> > > > > > > > > the idea that the spread was through dirty needles and
> > > > > > > > > homosexual anal sex. Therefore, they said, countermeasures
> > > > > > > > > must focus on those two methods of transmission, not on
> > > > > > > > > heterosexual sex. They said it was a huge waste of money
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > disseminate condoms and advice to heterosexual people.
> > > But
> > > > > > > > > has that advice concerned anal intercourse? If it has,
> > > > > > > > > then the expenditures in that area would not appear to
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > been a complete waste. If they have not, then their basic
> > > > > > > > > argument holds, with the caveat that they also have to
> > > > > > > > > address certain heterosexual practices as well as
> > > > > > > > > homosexual practices and dirty needles.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June
> > > > > > > > > 04, 2005 4:08.p.m. Subject: Re: The African heterosexual
> > > > > > > > > AIDS myth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It wasn't. Which was why I brought it up. If you have
> > > > > > > > > > transmission between heterosexual people through a
> > > > > > > > > > practice generally associated with homosexuals, I still
> > > > > > > > > > define that as "heterosexual transmission".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The left has a blind spot about barefoot doctors. We
> > > like
> > > > > > > > > > them because they're foreign and folksy and
> > > > > > > > > > appropriate-technology and well-meaning and all those
> > > > > > > > > > good things. We really don't want to think that they
> > > > > > > > > > might have killed more people than Hitler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The right has a blind spot that assumes "heterosexual"
> > > > > > > > > > means the same thing in all cultures as it did in
> > > > > > > > > > pre-Kinsey America. If heterosexuals do the same things
> > > > > > > > > > that homosexuals do, they can transmit the same virus
> > > > > > > > > > that homosexuals transmit doing it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 15:40, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) More heterosexual anal intercourse, including
> > > among
> > > > > > > > > > > > married couples
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe this factor was discussed in the FP
> > > > > > > > > > > symposium.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday,
> > > June
> > > > > > > > > > > 04, 2005 3:06.p.m. Subject: Re: The African
> > > heterosexual
> > > > > > > > > > > AIDS myth
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't have thought that particular fact was all
> > > > > > > > > > > > that obscure. The standard explanation of why AIDS
> > > > > > > > > > > > spreads faster in Africa than in any other
> > > > > > > > > > > > heterosexual population is
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) More heterosexual anal intercourse, including
> > > among
> > > > > > > > > > > > married couples 2) Less sexual exclusivity, even
> > > among
> > > > > > > > > > > > married couples 3) Less availability of condoms
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, if Glazov is looking for a mea culpa on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > bath-house debate, he'll find it in Randy Shilts'
> > > "And
> > > > > > > > > > > > The Band Played On", the definitive book on the
> > > early
> > > > > > > > > > > > days of AIDS in America. The really useful thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > Shilts does is track who knew what with how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > people had been diagnosed and how many had died at
> > > > > > > > > > > > that time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 14:33, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're missing an important point. In Africa,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anal sex is the most common form of birth
> > > control.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've said it before and I'll say it again, is
> > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything Hechtman doesn't know?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 10:31.p.m. Subject:
> > > Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > >
> > > > Absolutely. The religious right believes promiscuity is
> > bad because
> > > > the Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe doesn't like
> > it, never
> > > > has and never will. The left believes it's good or bad
> > depending on
> > > > the consequences on this earth, in this lifetime, and
> > those are going
> > > > to change over time. The left's morality comes from the
> > ground, not
> > > > from the sky.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 22:29, la wrote:
> > > > > Ok, but even if you're going only that far, even if
> > you're only
> > > > > positing that the right believes that it believes in
> > something real,
> > > > > you are acknowledging that the right holds itself to
> > some sort of
> > > > > standards that it sees as coming from outside itself,
> > > > > non-opportunistic standards, and therefore that there is
> > a different
> > > > > moral structure on the right and on the left.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:57.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nice try. I'll go as far as "the right believes it
> > believes in
> > > > > > something real" but that's it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 21:13, la wrote:
> > > > > > > > If you're a conservative, sure, you don't want to
> > use
> > > > > > > > opportunistic arguments for eternal values and
> > standards. But
> > > > > > > > if you're a liberal then most of your values and
> > standards are
> > > > > > > > opportunistic anyway, so you can get away with it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pretty interesting statement coming from a
> > guy of the
> > > > > left.
> > > > > > > Does this indicate a view that the right believes in
> > something
> > > > > real
> > > > > > > that the left does not believe in?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your other comments, about the ever-changing
> > attitudes of the
> > > > > left,
> > > > > > > are also interesting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:37.p.m.
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you're a conservative, sure, you don't want to
> > use
> > > > > > > > opportunistic arguments for eternal values and
> > standards. But
> > > > > > > > if you're a liberal then most of your values and
> > standards are
> > > > > > > > opportunistic anyway, so you can get away with it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If it's 1945 and there's no penicillin and there's
> > no birth
> > > > > > > > control pills, you can say, "Look, promiscuity is
> > bad because
> > > > > > > > it has some permanent consequences we don't yet
> > have a
> > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > for." In 1965 you can advocate the Sexual
> > Revolution and then
> > > > > > > > in 1985 you can say we need to dial it back for a
> > while, and
> > > > > > > > it'll all be consistent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's why I was venting about the influence of
> > internet porn
> > > > > > > > on pre-teens a few days ago. It's not yet time to
> > be quite
> > > > > > > > that relaxed about AIDS. The porn-peddlers aren't
> > -- they
> > > > > > > > make their stable of actors get tested every month
> > and even
> > > > > > > > then accidents happen. But when you're twelve, you
> > don't know
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another example: The number one gay cause in 1983
> > was keeping
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > bath-houses open to make it easier to have
> > hundreds of
> > > > > > > > anonymous sex partners per year. Twenty years
> > later, what's
> > > > > > > > the number-one gay cause? It's not re-opening the
> > > > > > > > bath-houses. It's something that'll make it easier
> > to have
> > > > > > > > just one permanent and exclusive partner. This
> > isn't a
> > > > > > > > coincidence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 17:44, la
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > To a lesser extent the religious right has
> > painted the
> > > > > > > > > > same picture, using the fear of AIDS as an
> > argument
> > > > > > > > > > against heterosexual promiscuity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which supports my general view that
> > opportunistic, indirect
> > > > > > > > > arguments do not work. If you're against
> > promiscuity, then
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > your best case against it. Don't
> > opportunistically use some
> > > > > > > > > disease that happens to be current.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:15.p.m.
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: The African heterosexual AIDS myth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't say the left is ignoring it. I know
> > about it
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > leftwing source (probably Worldwatch). As far
> > as advice,
> > > > > > > > > > the left will hand out condoms and advise that
> > they be
> > > > > > > > > > used. That's about it. We're not going to tell
> > married
> > > > > > > > > > couples "don't have this kind of sex, only
> > have that kind
> > > > > > > > > > of sex".
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > the absence of artificial birth control, we're
> > definitely
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > going to tell married couples, "don't have
> > non-procreative
> > > > > > > > > > sex, only have procreative sex."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The participants are not wrong that the left
> > has painted a
> > > > > > > > > > picture of AIDS as "everybody's problem". The
> > reductio ad
> > > > > > > > > > absurdum of this is lesbians promoting the
> > (100%
> > > > > unnecessary)
> > > > > > > > > > practice of oral sex through a latex dental
> > dam, just so
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > don't feel left out. Glazov is spot-on about
> > the radical
> > > > > > > > > > lesbian feminists in the early AIDS
> > organizations. I
> > > > > remember
> > > > > > > > > > seeing them in ACT-UP in 1988 and asking why
> > they were
> > > > > > > > > > there and in leadership positions when AIDS
> > isn't their
> > > > > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To a lesser extent the religious right has
> > painted the
> > > > > > > > > > same picture, using the fear of AIDS as an
> > argument
> > > > > > > > > > against heterosexual promiscuity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 16:33, la
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, I don't know what to make of this. If
> > > > > > > > > > > heterosexual anal penetration is a major
> > factor in the
> > > > > > > > > > > spread of
> > > > > African
> > > > > > > > > > > HIV, is it the case that both the "left" and
> > the "right"
> > > > > > > > > > > are ignoring it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The participants in the FP symposium laid
> > great stress
> > > > > > > > > > > on the idea that the spread was through
> > dirty needles
> > > > > > > > > > > and homosexual anal sex. Therefore, they
> > said,
> > > > > > > > > > > countermeasures must focus on those two
> > methods of
> > > > > > > > > > > transmission, not on heterosexual sex. They
> > said it was
> > > > > > > > > > > a huge waste of money
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > disseminate condoms and advice to
> > heterosexual people.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > has that advice concerned anal intercourse?
> > If it has,
> > > > > > > > > > > then the expenditures in that area would not
> > appear to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > been a complete waste. If they have not,
> > then their
> > > > > > > > > > > basic argument holds, with the caveat that
> > they also
> > > > > > > > > > > have to address certain heterosexual
> > practices as well
> > > > > > > > > > > as homosexual practices and dirty needles.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June
> > > > > > > > > > > 04, 2005 4:08.p.m. Subject: Re: The African
> > heterosexual
> > > > > > > > > > > AIDS myth
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't. Which was why I brought it up.
> > If you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > transmission between heterosexual people
> > through a
> > > > > > > > > > > > practice generally associated with
> > homosexuals, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > still define that as "heterosexual
> > transmission".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The left has a blind spot about barefoot
> > doctors. We
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > them because they're foreign and folksy
> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > appropriate-technology and well-meaning
> > and all those
> > > > > > > > > > > > good things. We really don't want to think
> > that they
> > > > > > > > > > > > might have killed more people than Hitler.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The right has a blind spot that assumes
> > "heterosexual"
> > > > > > > > > > > > means the same thing in all cultures as it
> > did in
> > > > > > > > > > > > pre-Kinsey America. If heterosexuals do
> > the same
> > > > > > > > > > > > things that homosexuals do, they can
> > transmit the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same virus that homosexuals transmit doing
> > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 15:40, Lawrence
> > Auster wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) More heterosexual anal intercourse,
> > including
> > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > married couples
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe this factor was
> > discussed in the FP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > symposium.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday,
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 04, 2005 3:06.p.m. Subject: Re: The
> > African
> > > > > heterosexual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > AIDS myth
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't have thought that
> > particular fact was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that obscure. The standard
> > explanation of why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > AIDS spreads faster in Africa than in
> > any other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > heterosexual population is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) More heterosexual anal intercourse,
> > including
> > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > married couples 2) Less sexual
> > exclusivity, even
> > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > married couples 3) Less availability
> > of condoms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, if Glazov is looking for a mea
> > culpa on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bath-house debate, he'll find it in
> > Randy Shilts'
> > > > > "And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Band Played On", the definitive
> > book on the
> > > > > early
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > days of AIDS in America. The really
> > useful thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shilts does is track who knew what
> > with how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > people had been diagnosed and how many
> > had died at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 14:33, Lawrence
> > Auster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're missing an important
> > point. In Africa,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anal sex is the most common form
> > of birth
> > > > > control.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've said it before and I'll say it
> > again, is
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything Hechtman doesn't know?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ken"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "la"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:28.p.m.
> Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
>
>
> Ludicrous:
>
> 1. They don't oppose the America of 1950.
>
> 2. I oppose Lincoln and I'm not a paleocon.
>
> i
>
> la wrote:
> Then why do you think they oppose Lincoln so passionately? They oppose post 1865 America.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: i
> To: la ; Paul Gottfried ; Eugene Girin ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ; goldenbergm14@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:42.p.m.
> Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
>
>
> You're over-reaching here. I see their anti-Americanism as a reaction to the corruption of the present America, not as a repudiation of America as it existed in 1950.
>
> i
>
> la wrote:
> Why does Paul think this has happened? Why should the paleos be terrified of being called racist? They're not terrified of being called Israel haters. They're not terrified of taking the side of Islamists and terrorists. Therefore I suspect that their motive for avoiding racial issues is not terror of being called racist; I suspect the motive is that they hate America. To defend "white America" is to defend a larger American identity that 200 million European Americans would potentially belong to. But paleos are against any larger American identity. A larger American identity would mean an American nation. The paleos are against the American nation. It was the American nation that the tyrant Lincoln defended/created and that the heroic South sought to dismember. The paleo idea is to undo the work of Lincoln. Belief in a white America--in an American nation--stands in the way of that.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Gottfried"
> To: "la"; "Eugene Girin" ; ; ;
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 2:24.p.m.
> Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
>
>
>
> > I agree with Larry on this point about the paleos entirely. What has
> > happened is that paleos have become so terrified of racial and genetic
> > issues that they run away from them even more dramatically than the NYT.
> > Chronicles, Modern Age, and American Conservative all illustrate this
> > tendency perfectly. PG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "la"
> > To: "Eugene Girin" ; ;
> > ;
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
> >
> >
> > > True. I'm not sure how many paleos and paleo-libs have agreed with
> > > Fleming. But it's more than a few. You basically don't see direct
> > > discussions about race as race in Chronicles or at Lew Rockwell. Justin
> > > Raimondo is supposedly a paleo-lib, yet he attacked me last year as a
> > > racist for things I had said about black-white differences at the 1994
> > > AR conference. And of course Buchanan (who is not a paleo, but people
> > > have lost these distinctions) has mostly avoided discussions of race.
> > > Scott McConnell, Buchanan's editor, denies that race matters.
> > > Meanwhile, Sam's racialism was unusual in its outspokenness (or became
> > > so). So he was not typical. On balance, I'd say anti-racialism has
> > > been more typical of the paleocon movement than racialism.
> > >
> > > As I said, it's an index of how useless they have been. Instead of
> > > taking a principled stand in defense of the white West against the
> > > non-white influx, the paleos indulge in hatred of of neocons and Israel.
> > > Gosh, if they were going to be haters, couldn't they hate something
> > > useful?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eugene Girin"
> > > To:; ;
> > > ;
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:15.p.m.
> > > Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well, prominent paleos like Sam Francis were racialists.
> > > > E
> > > >
> > > > From: "la"
> > > > To: "i" <,"Eugene'>>,"Eugene Girin"
> > > > <,,zhukh84@hotmail.com>,,
> > > > CC: <,,,"Paula'>kalb@aya.yale.edu>,,,"Paula
> > > Kaufman"
> > > > <,"Carol'>pakau4444@rcn.com>,"Carol Iannone"
> > > > Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
> > > > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:43:50 -0400
> > > >
> > > > He became very hostile to white racialism in the early '90s after
> > > Jared
> > > > Taylor appeared on the scene.
> > > >
> > > > It's true that Taylor's racialism may be too reductive, and that may
> > > explain
> > > > Fleming's hostility to it. But he took the rejection too far, denying
> > > there
> > > > was such a thing as white America.
> > > >
> > > > It's a further example of how useless paleos are. They hate Israel
> > > because
> > > > Israel has ethnic nationhood which Israel's supporters unfairly deny
> > > to the
> > > > U.S., yet at the same time the paleos themselves won't defend American
> > > > ethnic nationhood.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: i
> > > > To: la ; Eugene Girin ; r_lewenberg@yahoo.com ;
> > > > goldenbergm14@aol.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 11:13.a.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: No Such Thing As Race
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does Fleming admit the existence of poodles, dalmatians, and
> > > dobermans?
> > > > Frigging please......
> > > >
> > > > Robert Locke wrote an article on this "no such thing as race"
> > > nonsense,
> > > > which concluded with an extended dialogue with a professor who
> > > espouses such
> > > > views:
> > > >
> > > > www.frontpagemagazine.com/ Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=983
> > > >
> > > > It continues to amaze me that 99% of people who believe there's no
> > > such
> > > > thing as race still believe in affirmative action. That's the usual
> > > > question I use to trip them up.
> > > >
> > > > i
> > > >
> > > > la wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "In the absence of a shared white racial identity, white
> > > America
> > > > tends
> > > > to
> > > > > dissolve into its component parts."
> > > >
> > > > It's also worth mentioning that Thomas Fleming has for years
> > > opposed
> > > > any
> > > > kind of white racialism on the basis that there is no such thing
> > > as the
> > > > white race, that it is only an unreal abstraction (in the same
> > > way that
> > > > he sees America itself as an unreal abstraction). Fleming says
> > > the only
> > > > real collective entities are specific regional and religion
> > > groups,
> > > > e.g., Southerners, Midwest Catholics, whatever, but not whites as
> > > such.
> > > > To this, I counter that, in reality, white Americans have always
> > > seen
> > > > themselves as white Americans. White America is a historically
> > > real
> > > > identity, it is what we are. If you destroy that identity, you
> > > destroy
> > > > what we are. This is not to dismiss the smaller groupings that
> > > Fleming
> > > > talks about. But the larger group that all those groups are a
> > > part of
> > > > is white America.
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eugene Girin"
> > > > To: ; ;
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:35.p.m.
> > > > Subject: Re: Ethnicity in America
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "In the absence of a shared white racial identity, white
> > > America
> > > > tends
> > > > to
> > > > > dissolve into its component parts."
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree totally. That is what annoys me about a certain portion
> > > of
> > > > > Irish-Americans. They conveniently forget that the UK gave them
> > > > > civilization and choose to remember the Potato Famine. Their
> > > > irrational and
> > > > > alcohol-fueled hatred reminds me of the Russian attitude
> > > towards
> > > > Jews.
> > > > >
> > > > > "I also observe that, as neither an Anglo-Saxon nor a
> > > Protestant, it
> > > > always
> > > > > amuses me to have this term applied to myself."
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha ha! I guess the correct term for you is: formerly Anglican
> > > Celt.
> > > > > Speaking of which, is there a lot of mixing between English and
> > > > Scots?
> > > > Or
> > > > > do you guys keep aloof from the English?
> > > > >
> > > > > E
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: i
> > > > > To: Ron Lewenberg , goldenbergm14@aol.com
> > > > > CC: la , Eugene Girin
> > > > > , kalb@aya.yale.edu, k.hechtman@sympatico.ca,
> > > > > ack@MIT.EDU, gottfrpe@etown.edu
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ethnicity in America
> > > > > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > >
> > > > > This is why I am a racist. In the absence of a shared white
> > > racial
> > > > > identity, white America tends to dissolve into its component
> > > parts.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is so much sublimated ethnic resentment just below the
> > > surface.
> > > > Teddy
> > > > > Kennedy to this day is taking revenge for the Potato Famine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And no, I don't believe in an exclusively WASP America. We
> > > already
> > > > have an
> > > > > England; we don't need two. I also observe that, as neither an
> > > > Anglo-Saxon
> > > > > nor a Protestant, it always amuses me to have this term applied
> > > to
> > > > myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Lewenberg wrote:
> > > > > The WASPS, Scotch-Irish, and other whites who were
> > > > > here before 1800, built most of America. Even today,
> > > > > they are more than 1/3 of the population.
> > > > >
> > > > > They created out polity and institutions and were nice
> > > > > enough to let others come join them. We have repaid
> > > > > their generosity with contempt.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Mark Goldenberg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > This country is a sumtotal of contributions made by
> > > > > a number of groups. Unless you arewilling to claim
> > > > > that the only legitimate builder of a house is the
> > > > > onelaying the first brick (in which case you are
> > > > > making a joke...), Idon't really understand your
> > > > > question.
> > > > >
> > > > > i wrote on 6/6/2005, 2:30 PM:
> > > > >
> > > > > And a fascinatingquestion why, if these people are
> > > > > so terrible, you're so desperate tolive in the country
> > > > > they created.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reminds me of when theleft talks about how
> > > > > oppressive America is, compared to wonderful Cuba.
> > > > >
> > > > > i
> > > > >
> > > > > la wrote:
> > > > > Careful, Mark. You'renot going to get
> > > > > anywhere here by extolling Jews as talented
> > > > > andcreative and as an unmixed blessing for America,
> > > > > and putting downAmerica's historic majority group as
> > > > > dreadfully dull.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: MarkGoldenberg
> > > > > To: i
> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 20052:05.p.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Immigration &Holocaust
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Changing the host culture ? That would
> > > > > disqualify practicallyeverybody, including the Irish
> > > > > and the Italians. Also, "culture" is avery fancy word
> > > > > for a group of dreadfully dull WASPs.
> > > > >
> > > > > i wrote on 6/6/2005, 1:27 PM:
> > > > > Thanks for thedefense, but I didn't
> > > > > even assert the thing Mark challenged. Go backand
> > > > > read the thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would agree thatyes, small numbers
> > > > > of truly exceptional immigrants are sometimes in
> > > > > thenational interest. But I mean the Einsteins of
> > > > > this world. Allowingin 5,000 Jewish violin players in
> > > > > 1935 when American musicians weregoing unemployed is
> > > > > not my idea of rational policy. Allowing in
> > > > > 5,000Marxist literary critics is my idea of national
> > > > > suicide.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > la
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If I may beallowed to speak on Ian's behalf for a
> > > > > moment, since Ian is aphilo-Semite (though he wouldn't
> > > > > call himself such), I think Mark'schallenge to him is
> > > > > misplaced. Ian doesn't deny the special talentsand
> > > > > contributions of Jews. But he sees that Jews, like
> > > > > any immigrantgroup that is culturally different from
> > > > > the majority culture, are goingto change the host
> > > > > culture. Therefore all immigration should be lookedat
> > > > > with a cautious eye, not with a
> > > > > Commentary-style,celebratory song, "We're dancing in
> > > > > the streets about the blessingsbeing brought to us by
> > > > > immigrants!"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message
> > > > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: MarkGoldenberg
> > > > > To: i
> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 06,
> > > > > 200511:38.a.m.
> > > > > Subject: Re: Immigration
> > > > > &Holocaust
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don'tyou (or any of your multiple
> > > > > personalities) who decry the influx ofnon-white
> > > > > immigrants into the US , think that the arrival of
> > > > > aculturally European group with a unique pattern of
> > > > > creativity wasbeneficial for this country ?
> > > > >
> > > > > i wrote on 6/6/2005, 10:44 AM:
> > > > > >And
> > > > > by the way, most of the Jews who weren'table to enter
> > > > > the US wound up in the >camps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thiswas a failure of
> > > > > refugee policy, not immigration policy. Just
> > > > > becausewe ought to have done something to spare these
> > > > > people's lives doesn'tmean we have to admit them as
> > > > > immigrants. They should have been givenrefugee camps
> > > > > all over the world for the duration of the war and
> > > > > thenallowed to return to Europe or go to Israel.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wepay taxes to shelter the
> > > > > homeless. We don't put them up on ourliving-room
> > > > > couches. Robert Locke wrote about this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.vdare.com/locke/debunking.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Goldenberg
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > Onyour existence, probably not. But the all the
> > > > > great scientists,musicians, writers etc. who (or whose
> > > > > parents) came to US around thattime made an
> > > > > immeasurable contribution to this country and society.
> > > > > Andby the way, most of the Jews who weren't able to
> > > > > enter the US wound upin the camps.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eugene Girin wrote on 6/5/2005, 10:34 PM:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have the right to say this, as I have said (and
> > > > > Brimelow quotedme to
> > > > > > this effect in his book), that America did not have
> > > > > to let in somany
> > > > > > Jews in the 1880-1920 period, that while I'm glad my
> > > > > parents wereborn
> > > > > > and that I was born, nevertheless America's
> > > > > well-being did nothinge on
> > > > > > my existence.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jul 5 12:35:39 2005
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:35:39 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Revised comment on Liberalism is the only American belief system
Message-ID: <20050705163539.GA1904@vectra>
References: <00c901c57f29$e3e74b60$490dfea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00c901c57f29$e3e74b60$490dfea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1682 Thu Jul 14 21:05:54 2005
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1455
Lines: 22
I agree with all that. My Traditionalism and the American Order
(http://jkalb/node/15)covers some of these issues. The basic point is
that ostensible public liberalism was balanced and made functional by
unstated traditionalism. The balance was lost altogether in the 60s, so
we've got a basic problem and we can deal with it only by stating and
recognizing as authoritative what was unstated.
jk
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:17:12PM -0400, la wrote:
>
> Wolfe's theme: Liberalism is the only American belief system, encompassing both liberals and conservatives. This has been a leading theme at VFR. Since both liberals and conservatives are liberals, if there is to be something different, namely traditionalism, it must build on elements that have always been part of America (which Wolfe would not concede), but insufficiently articulated. As long as conservatives think that they are conservatives not liberals, and that liberalism represents a rebellion from the true, conservative, America, the conservatives can never get anywhere because they are part of the very thing they are opposing. That is why a principled conservatism, a conservatism that critiques liberalism on first principles and stands on different ground from liberalism, is needed.
>
> Nobody Here but Us Liberals
> New York Times Book Review, 5.7.3
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/books/review/03WOLFEL.html
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From nobody Wed Jul 13 16:48:34 2005
To: "la"
Subject: Re: Britain's response to Islamic terror: forbid criticism of Islam
X-Draft-From: ("nnfolder:Incoming" 52)
References: <008301c587e4$63dabce0$f10bfea9@h6l3p>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:48:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <008301c587e4$63dabce0$f10bfea9@h6l3p> (la's
message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:52:21 -0400")
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1849
Lines: 44
I agree this is unbelievably weird, but it does makes sense once
intolerance is the source of all evil and inclusiveness is the
definition of the good society. Then the bombings prove there's too much
untolerance so the solution becomes a comprehensive battle against the
same.
The basic point: as long as there is anyone anywhere on the face of the
earth who acts like an actual human being and does not totally accept
100% management by his therapeutic expert betters there will be
contention. Since that's so (and in fact it *is* so) it's glaringly
obvious the solution is universal mind control.
jk
"la" == la writes:
la> Britain's response to Islamic terror: forbid criticism of Islam
la> by la at View from the Right, "the right blog for the
la> right"
la> I wrote two hours ago, capsulizing Britain's liberal response to
la> the London bombings: "Therefore the way for Britain to protect
la> itself from Muslim extremism is to welcome Muslims more
la> extravagantly than ever before, and to silence any criticism of
la> Muslims more stringently than ever before."
la> And sure enough, the British have done just that! Today the House
la> of Commons passed a bill that criminalizes "incitement to
la> religious hatred." According to the UPI, "hundreds of Christians
la> demonstrated outside Parliament as the bill was debated, arguing
la> the law would prevent them criticizing other religions."
la> Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. Yet all in accord with the
la> critique of liberalism to which this website is largely devoted.
la> Posted by la at July 13, 2005 03:36 PM | Comment |
la> (To read original article, click on the article's title above.)
--
Jim Kalb (http://jkalb.org)
From nobody Wed Jul 13 16:52:01 2005
To: "la"
Subject: Re: Bush's policy is so crazy, even its success would be a disaster
X-Draft-From: ("nnfolder:Incoming" 51)
References: <000a01c587d1$b8301280$f10bfea9@h6l3p>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:51:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000a01c587d1$b8301280$f10bfea9@h6l3p> (la's
message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:38:40 -0400")
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1727
Lines: 38
Agreed. Bush's point, which in fact is correct, is that the total
transformation of reality would get rid of current problems. He's a can
do guy, so the conclusion is obvious.
jk
"la" == la writes:
la> This blog entry could be seen as a corrolary of your comment, at
la> one of our meetings, I think in fall of 2002, which I later quoted
la> at FrontPage, that Moslems, unlike Germans and Japanese, don't do
la> what they're told.
la> Bush's policy is so crazy, even its success would be a disaster
la> by la at View from the Right, "the right blog for the
la> right"
la> Even if President Bush's most sanguine ambitions were fulfilled
la> and democratic governments were set up in Iraq and several other
la> Moslem countries, an event Bush's supporters would hail as the
la> greatest since the Creation, that would not at all solve our Islam
la> problem. Unless all Moslems were converted to the belief in
la> democracy, an impossible outcome, millions of Moslems would
la> continue to resent and hate the alien system.the antithesis of
la> their holiest beliefs.that had been imposed on them, and they
la> would fight it with ever renewed fierceness and terror. So Bush's
la> policy, even if it succeeded on its own terms, is a recipe for an
la> unending guerilla terror war waged against every democratic regime
la> in the Moslem world, a campaign that America would be responsible
la> for suppressing, forever.
la> Posted by la at July 13, 2005 12:20 PM | Comment |
la> (To read original article, click on the article's title above.)
--
Jim Kalb (http://jkalb.org)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jul 16 13:50:28 2005
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:50:28 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: The Times on nannies
Message-ID: <20050716175028.GA10281@vectra>
References: <019401c58a1d$d87729e0$25bafea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <019401c58a1d$d87729e0$25bafea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2530
Lines: 65
I suppose the point is that it focuses particularized individual
attention on 3rd world women of color, and so supports them thereby
undercutting racial and sexual hegemony. It makes them virtual members
of the class the Times represents. It's like affirmative action.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:48:41AM -0400, la wrote:
> May be of interest. Read from the bottom up.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: la
> To: Carol Iannone
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:47.a.m.
> Subject: Re: The Times on nannies
>
>
>
>
> What made me ask the questions was the Times' phrase, "The Nanny-Child Bond ... an iron bond can develop between nanny and child." To speak approvingly of a special bond between two specific types of human being, not just any generic human beings, but between a (female) nanny and a child, seems so, particularistic, so anti-liberal. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that there's a particular kind of bond between mothers and their children, or between men and women, or between Americans and English, or between white people, a bond that does not exist in the case of other pairings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carol Iannone
> To: la
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:27.a.m.
> Subject: Re: The Times on nannies
>
>
> And why that picture? Most nannies are non-white. Even the reports on the nanny and child caught in the collapse described her as the Hispanic nanny. Funny when you think of it, why mention that.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: la
> To: Carol Iannone
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:26 a.m.
> Subject: The Times on nannies
>
>
>
> From today's Times. Interesting how the Times accepts as a given that it is nannies--women, not men--who professionally look after small children. Why aren't men equally involved in the child care field? Why this inequality? Why are women so overrepresented in an area that suggests service and subservience? And why doesn't the Times ask these questions? Does it believe that women are naturally more oriented toward child care than men are? Or does it believe that society forces women into this role?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times
> The Nanny-Child Bond
> Nannies and parents may have ambivalent relationships, but an iron bond can develop between nanny and child. Go to Article
>
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jul 16 18:28:33 2005
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:28:33 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: The Times on nannies
Message-ID: <20050716222833.GA10797@vectra>
References: <019401c58a1d$d87729e0$25bafea9@h6l3p> <20050716175028.GA10281@vectra> <02af01c58a3a$45cb1300$25bafea9@h6l3p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02af01c58a3a$45cb1300$25bafea9@h6l3p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3474
Lines: 101
Other points: the piece also promotes a nonstandard family-style
relationship, and it proves that when yuppie women like the author leave
their kids with a nanny they're actually gifting them with an additional
family-style relationship. It's an act of generosity.
jk
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:12:11PM -0400, la wrote:
> Pretty good explanation. Whew, I can relax now, the Times isn't going
> conservative after all.
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: "Jim Kalb"
> To: "la"
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:50.p.m.
> Subject: Re: Fw: The Times on nannies
>
> > I suppose the point is that it focuses particularized individual
> > attention on 3rd world women of color, and so supports them thereby
> > undercutting racial and sexual hegemony. It makes them virtual members
> > of the class the Times represents. It's like affirmative action.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:48:41AM -0400, la wrote:
> > > May be of interest. Read from the bottom up.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Carol Iannone
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:47.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: The Times on nannies
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What made me ask the questions was the Times' phrase, "The
> > > Nanny-Child Bond ... an iron bond can develop between nanny and
> > > child." To speak approvingly of a special bond between two
> > > specific types of human being, not just any generic human beings,
> > > but between a (female) nanny and a child, seems so,
> > > particularistic, so anti-liberal. Next thing you know, they'll be
> > > saying that there's a particular kind of bond between mothers and
> > > their children, or between men and women, or between Americans and
> > > English, or between white people, a bond that does not exist in the
> > > case of other pairings.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Carol Iannone
> > > To: la
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:27.a.m.
> > > Subject: Re: The Times on nannies
> > >
> > >
> > > And why that picture? Most nannies are non-white. Even the
> > > reports on the nanny and child caught in the collapse described her
> > > as the Hispanic nanny. Funny when you think of it, why mention
> > > that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: la
> > > To: Carol Iannone
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:26 a.m.
> > > Subject: The Times on nannies
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From today's Times. Interesting how the Times accepts as a
> > > given that it is nannies--women, not men--who professionally look
> > > after small children. Why aren't men equally involved in the child
> > > care field? Why this inequality? Why are women so overrepresented
> > > in an area that suggests service and subservience? And why doesn't
> > > the Times ask these questions? Does it believe that women are
> > > naturally more oriented toward child care than men are? Or does it
> > > believe that society forces women into this role?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times
> > > The Nanny-Child Bond
> > > Nannies and parents may have ambivalent relationships, but an
> > > iron bond can develop between nanny and child. Go to Article
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From nobody Wed Jul 20 08:53:51 2005
To: rawls@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [rawls] Re: Does merely political liberalism make sense?
X-Draft-From: ("nnfolder:Incoming" 228)
References: <20050719173543.68478.qmail@web54006.mail.yahoo.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:53:48 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050719173543.68478.qmail@web54006.mail.yahoo.com> (Gary E.
Davis's message of "Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <87ll41fxk3.fsf@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Status: RO
Content-Length: 6137
Lines: 113
Thanks much for the response. I think part of what I'm puzzling over is
how solid the procedural/substantive distinction is. After all, Rawls's
principles of justice describe a state of affairs, and for him the
overriding purpose of politics, the purpose that trumps all other
purposes, is to maximize that state of affairs. So why is that so
different from any other summum bonum politics might be based upon?
None of which is altogether clear, even to me. Maybe specifics will
help:
"GED" =3D=3D Gary E Davis writes:
GED> Gary: Rawls, you know, idealizes society to have =93overlapping
GED> comprehensive doctines,=94 such that the governance ensures fair
GED> play ( procedurally/regulatively) relative to *whatever*
GED> doctrines (or whatever), which will happen to overlap in views,
GED> values, etc., maybe very substantially. E.g., both religionists
GED> and secularists share many views associated with humanism;
GED> there=92s overlap between them on many values, though not on
GED> human nature. People may hold the same stance (e.g., supporting
GED> the same option in an election) for different basic reasons
GED> (e.g., one =93party=94 has theological reasons for supporting
GED> human rights, another party has Rawlsian reasons for supporting
GED> human rights). The interplay of views, implicating fundamentally
GED> different worldviews (or comprehensive doctrines) is kept fair by
GED> the just society, without preference for a given doctrine to
GED> prevail. But such a keeping-fair is not a substantive doctrine.
I don't see why the general-furtherance of utilitarianism is more
substantive than the keeping-fair of Rawls's view. Neither favors poetry
over pushpin. Both ignore the nature and value of particular preferences
in favor of bringing about maximum aggregate satisfaction
(utilitarianism) or maximum equal ability to pursue successfully (Rawls)
for all preferences. If anything, Rawls's view is more concerned with
specified particular results, because it's so much concerned with how
benefits are divided up, and therefore perhaps more substantive.
GED> G: Fair pluralism is not a comprehensive doctrine, it=92s a
GED> comprehensive *procedurality* or *way* of regarding/living with
GED> doctrines (comprehensive or not) and other kinds of interests.
That's true if you don't view maximum equal ability to assert oneself in
public life and pursue preferences successfully -- that is to say,
maximum equal power -- as a goal. I just don't see why you shouldn't,
why it's not as specific a goal as maximum aggregate satisfaction.
In everyday life people sometimes aim at power, just as they sometimes
aim at sex, money or sanctification. All those things seem to be
included under the heading of substantive goods. My problem is that
Rawls seems to think that if you make maximum equal power the overriding
goal of politics you're not choosing a specific political summum bonum
whereas if you make maximum equal sex, money or sanctification the
overriding goal of politics you are.
The issue I see is that Rawls's principles of justice appear to be what
you'd get if you said the individual summum bonum is power, the supreme
demand of morality is promoting that good for everybody as equally as
possible, and the supreme goal of politics is implementing that view of
morality through basic social institutions to the extent it can be so
implemented. If that's right, then someone who thought the summum bonum
was something else, pleasure or virtue or sanctification say, might ask
why he should go along.
Maybe the response is that power is different as a goal, because it's
the goal that gets you to all your other goals. So whatever your scheme
of preferences may be you can join in a common effort to maximize
everybody's power because that helps everybody go for what he wants.
That might be a (somewhat crude) way of making Rawls's point.
A possible difficulty with that response is that not everybody thinks
that power -- rights, opportunities, primary goods etc. -- are what get
you where you want to go. Someone might think that wisdom, virtue,
sanctification etc. are better than success as ordinarily conceived. He
might think that those things come about when you realize that you are
not the center of things, that the moral world is much bigger than you
and your purposes and wants, and that your highest good is accepting
that larger moral world and bringing yourself in line with it. From such
a point of view a Rawlsian state would be objectionable because it
establishes and propagates a particular false understanding of the human
good. It would be as if it established a religion one thought false and
destructive.
GED> On the other hand, utilitarianism requires standards of
GED> *satisfaction* (beyond the fair playing field for *pursuits*)
GED> applicable across pursuits. Such a standard covering all pursuits
GED> isn=92t required for fair pluralism.
How can it be more difficult to find standards for satisfaction of
preferences than it is to find standards for fair pursuit? You can't
know whether someone can pursue a preference unless you know what its
satisfaction would be.
GED> JK: I suppose it would be an egalitarian version of making the
GED> will to power the supreme standard.
GED> G: No, because there is no singularity of power that is implied
GED> (no substantive End that is being willed to power) ... a will to
GED> power has a clear sense of End in mind (and probably a
GED> substantive doctrine of history implicating everyone=92s journey
GED> through life).
Is that so? It seems to me that power as such doesn't have a particular
substantive end. If someone says "politician X is just after power" it
means "politician X doesn't have a particular substantive goal he wants
to bring about."
GED> G: Again, a car may ensure that you get where you=92re going,
GED> but doesn=92t predetermine where that=92s to be.
In other words, a car gives you power.
Thanks again for the response. Rawls is a complex and comprehensive
thinker, and discussion is very helpful.
From nobody Sat Jul 23 12:03:22 2005
To: "la"
Subject: Re: Roberts
X-Draft-From: ("nnfolder:Incoming" 292)
References: <87wtnhpmbn.fsf@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
<002b01c58f9e$37142900$4b3bfea9@h6l3p>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:03:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <002b01c58f9e$37142900$4b3bfea9@h6l3p> (la's
message of "Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:50:12 -0400")
Message-ID: <87k6jhpl13.fsf@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1851
Lines: 48
The "Manchurian conservative" concept is going too far and not in line
with my general understanding of politics today. At the higher and more
establishment levels it's too much concerned with the next win. My guess
would be that Roberts is low-key so he doesn't feel obliged to assert
his views more than needed for a particular purpose and he's ambitious
and so sees the advantages of not holding up red flags. Of course it
would also help him if he really doesn't have any views except a very
general and flexible overall orientation. Who knows though.
jk
"la" == la writes:
la> That's a way of reading it. But please see latest blog entry at
la> VFR where a reader suggests a "Manchurian candidate" scenario,
la> that the Bush adminstiration deliberately cultivated Roberts for
la> this position and made sure he didn't leave a trail.
la> That would also mean, in addition to their being geniuses, that
la> the search for a nominee the last two weeks was a show.
la> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Kalb"
la> To: Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005
la> 11:35.a.m. Subject: Roberts
>> The statements you mention in your blog entry don't conflict. It
>> would be quite natural for a lawyer to say that (i) whatever he
>> says in a brief he is saying on behalf of his client position and
>> not as his own view, (ii) if Supreme Court decisions were wrongly
>> decided, they
la> should
>> be reversed by the Supreme Court, and (iii) until that happens, and
>> as long as they are repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, a
>> lower court judge should treat them as the law and apply them as
>> precedent.
>>
>> jk
>>
>> -- Jim Kalb Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From nobody Mon Jul 25 21:39:16 2005
To: "la"
Subject: Re: revisiting my problem with your articulation of liberalism
X-Draft-From: ("nnfolder:Incoming" 322)
References: <00d501c59163$582f1e80$c4e3fea9@h6l3p>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:39:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <00d501c59163$582f1e80$c4e3fea9@h6l3p> (la's
message of "Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:53:48 -0400")
Message-ID: <874qaijqgt.fsf@vectra.kalb.ath.cx>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2709
Lines: 52
But there are always inequalities because questions have to get answered
and decisions made simply as a practical matter. There's always a "who
whom." The inequalities that are allowed, who the peers are and who the
non-peers are, define the social structure.
Liberalism insists that decisions and distinctions be made neutrally and
therefore by something like a scientific process. That means they have
to be made technologically, through the application of neutral
scientific principles to construct a process that satisfies desire as
much and as equally as possible.
As to distinctions among human beings liberalism allows inqualities
based on money, bureaucratic position, and formal certification. Those
are thought the things most clearly related to a rational comprehensible
process for maxizing satisfactions as much and as equally as possible.
So they are the things that define the liberal social structure. It's
not simply equality because there is after all a structure.
jk
"la" == la writes:
la> At one time people thought it was common sense to distinguish
la> between a Connecticut Yankee and a Southern black and expect very
la> different things of them. Today that kind of distinction is
la> thought outrageous, but people still differentiate a Harvard
la> graduate from a high school graduate who just got out of the
la> Marines. The change is not due to an advance in morality but to a
la> change in social ideal and to some extent social organization.
la> Instead of accepting as proper the influence of culture, history
la> and personal connections people today are inclined to view only
la> technology as rational and legitimate.
la> I agree with everything up to the last half of the last sentence,
la> but there I depart from you. It's not that people view only
la> technology as rational and legimiate, it's that they view only
la> equality as rational and legitimate. Let's say people want a
la> proportional number of blacks in a school. Are they seeking that
la> because they regard only technology as rational and legitimate? Of
la> course not. They're seeking it because they believe in equality.
la> Thus I think that your way of articulating liberalism in terms of
la> technology, while it may apply in particular circumstances, is not
la> only esoteric but just plain incorrect as one's general definition
la> of liberalism. To say that the main idea of liberalism is that
la> only technology is rational and legitimate is not correct and does
la> not help people's understand liberalism in its most characteristic
la> manifestations.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.