Category Archives: Culture and society

Political psychopathology

Posted on by | 2 Comments

That wasn’t the title of Peter Berkowitz’ recent column on “Bush hatred and Obama euphoria,” but it might have been.  (Although “pneumatopathology,” a pathology of the spirit, would really be more to the point.)  This is not speaking, of course, to opposition to one and support of the other, or even to intense dislike of the policies of one and strong approval for the policies of the other, but to something which goes beyond both.  As Berkowitz writes,

Bush hatred and Obama euphoria—which tend to reveal more about those who feel them than the men at which they are directed—are opposite sides of the same coin. Both represent the triumph of passion over reason. Both are intolerant of dissent. Those wallowing in Bush hatred and those reveling in Obama euphoria frequently regard those who do not share their passion as contemptible and beyond the reach of civilized discussion. Bush hatred and Obama euphoria typically coexist in the same soul. And it is disproportionately members of the intellectual and political class in whose souls they flourish.To be sure, democratic debate has always been a messy affair in which passion threatens to overwhelm reason. So long as citizens remain free and endowed with a diversity of interests and talents, it will remain so. . . .In surveying the impediments to bringing reason to bear in politics, it was not [Alexander] Hamilton’s aim to encourage despair over democracy’s prospects but to refine political expectations. “This circumstance, if duly attended to,” he counseled, “would furnish a lesson of moderation to those, who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right, in any controversy.”As Hamilton would have supposed, the susceptibility of political judgment to corruption by interest and ambition is as operative in our time as it was in his. What has changed is that those who, by virtue of their education and professional training, would have once been the first to grasp Hamilton’s lesson of moderation are today the leading fomenters of immoderation.Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are particularly toxic because they thrive in and have been promoted by the news media, whose professional responsibility, it has long been thought, is to gather the facts and analyze their significance, and by the academy, whose scholarly training, it is commonly assumed, reflects an aptitude for and dedication to systematic study and impartial inquiry.From the avalanche of vehement and ignorant attacks on Bush v. Gore and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, to the remarkable lack of interest in Mr. Obama’s career in Illinois politics and the determined indifference to his wrongness about the surge, wide swaths of the media and the academy have concentrated on stoking passions rather than appealing to reason. . . .By assembling and maintaining faculties that think alike about politics and think alike that the university curriculum must instill correct political opinions, our universities cultivate intellectual conformity and discourage the exercise of reason in public life. . . . They infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers.

Modernity as universal cultural acid

Posted on by | 2 Comments

James Hitchcock has a truly remarkable editorial in the latest Touchstone which asks a penetrating question:  can traditional societies survive the power of modernity?  He writes,

A closed traditional society finds it almost impossible to effect an orderly and controlled transition to modernity. Religion dominates all aspects of life to the extent that no distinction is made between matters of faith and mere custom. . . .Thus, it proves psychologically impossible to discard those things in traditional society that have outlived their legitimacy without thereby setting off global change. The changing culture fosters a half-conscious conviction that truth lies roughly in asserting the opposite of what one previously believed. Changes cannot be evaluated rationally, because people are carried along by a euphoric sense of having liberated themselves from long-standing, narrow oppressiveness.Modern society offers an opportunity to exercise freedom in the fullest sense, an exercise that exposes the facts that what passes for deep conviction may be for many people merely a brittle social conformity, and what passes for morality may be the mere absence of opportunities for sin.Muslims who see the United States as the Great Satan reject the good of political liberty along with the poisonous moral licentiousness that such liberty permits. They perceive the ambiguity of modernity itself, most of which either originated in the United States or has been propagated through American influence.But for that very reason the antibodies to modern cultural viruses also exist most robustly in the United States, which is practically the only society in the Western world where moral traditionalists have an effective voice in public affairs.Religious belief is stronger in America than anywhere else in the West partly because believers have had to find ways of living their faith without the kind of social supports that, historically, were provided in countries with established churches.

This is an interesting explanation for America’s unusual religious culture, and one that makes a great deal of sense; but if he’s right to suggest that “the forces of modernity—political, economic, and cultural—really are irresistible and that sooner or later almost every society in the world will have to face them,” then the implications of his argument must be faced as well, because they are of great significance.  As he says,

If that assumption is correct, it is better to experience modernity sooner rather than later, in order to make use of what is good in it and to learn to cope with what is bad. Simple quarantine is no longer possible. . . .Both for societies and for individuals, our cultural situation is tragic in the classical sense, because it requires decisions none of which are free of possible bad consequences. Maintaining a rigorously closed society may protect generations of people from the worst evils of modernity, even as it virtually guarantees that later generations will be infected all the more virulently. But alternatively, allowing people a good measure of freedom inevitably leads to abuse.

While, from a Christian perspective, one may well call the consequences of this situation for the church tragic, there is a silver lining as well:  if Hitchcock’s overall thesis is correct, then that applies not only to Christian societies but also to Muslim societies as well.  This suggests that while traditionalist Islamic societies will no doubt succeed in resisting modernity for some time—which is, I believe, the driving concern behind the rise of Islamism in its various forms, including its most virulent strain, jihadism—they cannot resist forever; eventually, the Islamic world will see its own version of Quebec’s “Silent Revolution,” and the collapse of radical Islam, leaving much of the Islamic world looking much like the once-Christian nations of western Europe.  This offers hope that, in our conflict with militant Islam as with the Cold War against global communism, if we will stand strong and not surrender, we will see a Berlin Wall moment.

The politics of gratitude

Posted on by | No Comments

He was never the candidate I supported, or the president I would have chosen; I think he’s gotten a raw deal and that he’ll be treated much better by history than he was by the media, but there are many legitimate criticisms that will remain.  Some of those are policy disagreements, matters of liberals and conservatives having different ideas, but many of them aren’t, especially as regards his management style and personnel judgment.Nevertheless, I thank George W. Bush for his eight years of service as our president, just as I thank Barack Obama for now taking up that heavy burden—and just as I will thank him when the time comes for him to lay it down in turn.  I disagreed with much that President Bush did; I fully expect to disagree with far, far more that President Obama does; but just because they do not serve in the way I would prefer does not mean I’m not grateful for their willingness to serve.  Indeed, barring actual corruption, if you have to agree with everything a politician does in order to be grateful for their service, if you can only honor politicians who think the way you do and support the policies you want, then there’s something wrong with you.  I mean that in complete sincerity.This is now something conservatives need to bear in mind.  We’ve dealt with eight years of “He’s not my president” and similarly dishonorable talk from liberals; for the sake of the Republic and the health of our own souls, we cannot afford to return ill for ill.  Just because we didn’t get what we want doesn’t mean we have the right to declare Barack Obama “not our president,” or to belittle him, or spread lies about him, or treat him with contempt, or dismiss him as unworthy, or run down his character, or any of the other things we’ve watched liberals do to George W. Bush for the last two terms.  He is our president—Lord willing, the only one we’re going to have for the next four years—and for the good of our country, we need to support him as best we can.  Not only would it be sick and wrong for conservatives to be as evil to him (or anywhere close) as his supporters were to President Bush, it’s a luxury we can’t afford.  We need to be better than that.  My prayer is that we will continue to be.HT for the picture:  Benjamin P. Glaser

Listen to the dream

Posted on by | 3 Comments

My children are in school today; our school district is using holidays as snow days, which doesn’t exactly seem kosher to me. So, as a tribute but also as a bit of a protest, I thought I’d post Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech this morning; this is the whole thing, not just the famous peroration, and if you’ve never heard it, it’s more than worth the time to listen. For that matter, even if you have heard it, it’s still more than worth the time.

Richard John Neuhaus, RIP

Posted on by | No Comments

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, founder of the Institute for Religion and Public Life and founding editor-in-chief of First Things, died this morning at the age of 72, of complications from cancer.  I never met him—I’ve wanted to for years, but I knew it was highly unlikely that it would ever happen—and can’t say I knew him, apart from the occasional gracious correspondence by e-mail (I don’t know if my own experience is typical, but if it is, he has to have spent a lot of time e-mailing random readers), but I truly grieve his death.  As a winsome, insightful, grace-bearing advocate for the gospel of Jesus Christ in our contemporary Western culture (and he was that, even as he never backed down from a fight he deemed worthwhile), he had few equals and fewer superiors over this past century.  His death, coming so soon after that of Avery Cardinal Dulles, impoverishes not only the Catholic theological scene, but the whole church, in America and around the world.  I have no doubt that First Things will continue strong under the leadership of Joseph Bottum, but as my wife pointed out when she called to give me the news, his own voice and perspective will never be replaced.  I appreciate what Bottum had to say, which I think is just about perfect:

My tears are not for him—for he knew, all his life, that his Redeemer lives, and he has now been gathered by the Lord in whom he trusted.I weep, rather for all the rest of us. As a priest, as a writer, as a public leader in so many struggles, and as a friend, no one can take his place. The fabric of life has been torn by his death, and it will not be repaired, for those of us who knew him, until that time when everything is mended and all our tears are wiped away.

It is good and right that Bottum has chosen to repost today Fr. Neuhaus’ 2000 article “Born Toward Dying,” which the Anchoress rightly calls “deep, open, thoughtful, funny, moving and wise. Typically, so.”  My only objection to her use of the word “typically” is that this really is Fr. Neuhaus at his best; it is, I think, a profoundly important piece, especially for our death-denying, thanatophobic culture.The Anchoress also posted a video of the Kings College Choir singing the seventh movement, “In Paradisum,” from Gabriel Fauré’s Requiem in D minor, which suits beautifully here:

Requiescat in pace, Fr. Neuhaus.

It all depends what the meaning of “is” is

Posted on by | No Comments

In today’s daily piece on the First Things website, titled “The Good Life,” Amy Julia Becker meditates on what it means for life to be good as it is in the face of human disabilities—and in the face of those who vehemently deny that possibility. She begins with this quote from William Motley, an Oxford geneticist, from a letter to the editor of the New York Times:

Fighting Down syndrome with prenatal screening does not “border on eugenics.” It is a “search-and-destroy mission” on the disease, not on a category of citizens.

As Becker notes, this is merely an attempt to evade the fact that his “search-and-destroy mission” will in fact eliminate a category of citizens, regardless of whether they are declared to be its targets or not; he’s attempting to defend himself by redefining the reality, and thus by avoiding the argument rather than answering it. Put another way, he’s attempting to define the humanity of Down Syndrome children out of the discussion.Which prompts the thought that there is no category of people with whom you couldn’t do the exact same thing. Want to get rid of homosexuals, or black people, or redheads? It’s not eugenics, just a “search-and-destroy mission” on a particular characteristic. All you need is for society to agree that that particular characteristic is undesirable, and boom! you’re free to proceed, unhampered by any of those pesky ethical considerations.It’s just one more way to argue that society should be free to get rid of the inconvenient. Which seems fine, as long as you’re strong and productive and able to defend yourself. But those who live by that particular sword will die by it in the end. Sure, right now, everyone agrees that you’re a contributing member of society; but will they always?

Samuel Huntington, RIP

Posted on by | No Comments

I’m working with a fairly limited connection here at the moment, but I wanted to note the death of Harvard political scientist and author Samuel P. Huntington. Over the last decade, Dr. Huntington took a pounding from his fellow members of the liberal Western intelligentsia; when they wanted to join Francis Fukuyama in celebrating The End of History, he had the guts in his article “The Clash of Civilizations?” (and the resulting book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order), to point out how foolish that triumphalism was. As Mark Steyn put it, Dr. Huntington’s key point was that

the conventional western elite view of man as homo economicus is reductive—that cultural identity is a more profound indicator that western-style economic liberty cannot easily trump.

As a consequence, he argued that the post-Cold War era would not see the end of major conflict, but rather would see a shift from wars of ideology to wars driven by conflicts between cultures—and particularly by the conflict along “Islam’s bloody borders.” He was pilloried for his argument, but it seems to me that history has validated his analysis, where Dr. Fukuyama’s position has fallen by the wayside. For those interested in reading more, Power Line has a good short roundup of pieces on Dr. Huntington, including Robert Kaplan’s excellent profile of him in The Atlantic. For his insight, his capacity for independent thought, and his willingness to follow out his analysis in the face of the conventional wisdom, Dr. Huntington will be greatly missed.

Seasonal frustration

Posted on by | 4 Comments

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about having Christmas decorations and Christmas music in all the stores starting the day after Thanksgiving, and I get where they’re coming from, but I don’t exactly agree; in particular, even if it is properly Advent, Christmas music at least has the potential to be far better than the normal run of store music.  No, what I really object to is the kind of so-called “Christmas” music we usually get these days:  to wit, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” “Jingle Bells,” “Jingle Bell Rock,” “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree,” and this year, what might be the worst song Paul McCartney ever wrote (something called “Wonderful Christmastime”), spiced with the occasional Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby tune, in seemingly unending rotation, courtesy of various singers and bands.  (The other day I heard a version of “Jingle Bell Rock” that was so awful and so over the top I broke out laughing; I think it’s the only positive experience I’ve ever had of that song, which I loathe to the very core of my being.)For crying out loud, if they’re going to play Christmas music at all, would it kill them to play music that’s actually about, you know, Christmas?