The Degradation Of Political Legacies, Part Two

The other day, we wrote, The Degradation Of Political Legacies, Part One. In that post, we directed our attention to to what we believe are the current failings of the Left. Today, we turn our attention the Right, and what’s gone wrong.

It is important that the Right be accorded it’s proper due, of course. This country, was built upon the best of religious and conservative values- freedom and tolerance, those qualities so many were denied in Europe. Religious institutions in this country feed and care for millions, here and abroad, every day. Mother Teresa set a shining example by taking care of the world’s ‘wretched refuse,’ highlighting the potential we can reach inspired by Higher values.

There is also another side to the Right- a side that has evolved from less than moral or sacred ideals.

There are many Americans that clearly see a society that places materialism and the pursuit of selfish endeavors as being of far greater importance than moral values. “Looking out for number one” has become the mantra of a good part of who we are. There is a notion that spending money on consumer goods is now a moral and good thing- after all, that helps the economy, right? And that’s good for the country, right? Many Americans feel betrayed by such a society- they feel and see the loss of those higher ideals that meant so much to us.

There are many Americans that want something more than materialism as the icon of success. They want meaning, purpose and an idealism that is almost sacred in nature, that transcends the mere value of material success and the self centeredness that feeds it. A bigger house in the suburbs, with new cars in the driveway, is not that ideal

No one is criticizing the reality- healthcare, employment, retirement and so on, are real needs and must be addressed. Nevertheless, there are a lot of Americans who are disappointed in the Right- because they understand that tax relief and IRA’s and monetary policy and so on, while important, do not speak to the hunger for meaning in their lives. It would be easy to say, ‘religious values provide that meaning,’ but that is unfair and irrelevant.

Many on the Right (and as with the Left, not all), would best allow God his primacy. In other words, we would best focus on our relations with our fellow man as our principal concern. Let’s allow God to deal with man’s relation with Him.

Not everybody is religious- or of one single religion- and religion holds no ownership over meaning and morality. If it did, we’d live in a perfect world. Western religion emphasizes ‘free choice.’ As we wrote once before, ‘For the religious, and the believers, it is important to remember that we are endowed with free will. The choice to do what we do, is our own. In other words, it is up to each individual to live life as best he sees how. Belief is not to be imposed, but rather, to be arrived at and understood, by each individual.

It is not contrary to faith to be an individual.

Is there anything above that is untrue? Can anyone make an argument against those ideas? Are those ideas so anathema to the Right?

There are many on the Right (and the Left) that will reject an idea, simply because of where it originated. Many conservatives reject out of hand many good liberal initiatives, as if that alone tainted their value and worth.

Here’s another truth: There are no good spiritual beliefs that will be undone by man made ones, and no good liberal ideals are in conflict with those who believe in God. Deal with it.

The Right, religious and otherwise has no more claim to the ‘truth’ or morality than the Left.

Simply embracing an ideology does not in itself endow greater meaning or superiority to any individual. It is in the works and the manifestation in those beliefs that our worth is measured.

Hopefully, SC&A have now upset many of you on the Right and the Left.
Some may note that we are not necessarily exhibiting an equal amount of energy excoriating the Right as we did the Left. Our previous post about the Left focused on the Middle East, almost exclusively. We believe that when it comes to the Middle East, the Left has failed spectacularly. Indeed, if there were one area we were most disappointed with the Left, it is in that arena. We did not take the Left to task on many social issues and we will not take the Right to task for their position on the Middle East. We are far more disturbed about the Left’s Middle East policies than anything else, because their politics only highlights their impotence. As we said, we specifically did not take the Left to task for their position on social issues- because we don’t see those issues as relevant or important to the matter at hand. Our position on abortion and same sex marriage are known- and we won’t make that an issue in defining what is wrong with the left. As to our opinion of the Right’s position on the Middle East, we don’t see that issue to be relevant.

Now some may nit pick certain points. We did not and will not write a tome on the matter at hand. Nor did we write 10,000 words when we described what went wrong with the left.

It is our intent today write an overview of what went wrong with the right. No more, no less. Talking about states rights and the culture of life, opens up a door we have no desire to walk through- and neither do most readers of this blog, of the Left and Right, we suspect.

We do need to be more strident in our categorization of the Right, because that side of the political spectrum have been just as guilty as the Left when it comes to polarizing the electorate.

In fact, there are conservative ideologues that are guilty of fanning the flames of discord- an especially egregious violation when you consider that societies flourish in an atmosphere of tolerance for new ideas- at times ideas that challenge the status quo. A brief look at the history of scientific discovery attests to that. Had there not been those willing to challenge the conservative- and religious- powers that be, much of what we now take for granted may not have been, metaphorically speaking.

Like it or not, the Right has to learn and remember that it is the ‘live and let live’ philosophy that trumps all. It is the ‘live and let live’ that is the DNA of democracy. If God in your personal life isn’t satisfactory and you need more, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. You share their belief structures.

This administration’s penchant for secrecy is being defended with the same ferocity as those who defended Bill Clinton’s deceit (941 FBI files of Americans on the Clinton enemies were found in the White House residence. How can that be defended- or forgotten?).

Secrecy is important, but there can be too much secrecy. There is no reason the President of the United States should be allowed to go unchallenged, at all times. Those who support that idea pose an equal danger to democracy as do the Leftists that want to usurp the President of all the powers of his office.

It is no more than a little man’s hubris to think he possess all the answers for all times. Choosing absolutism means heading for a train wreck- and God will not save you if you put yourself on the train tracks.

More than that, putting your fellow citizen in harm’s way will only assure you of a warm hereafter- a just reward, indeed.

Flash Cards

Food for thought:

Fausta provides a heads up to this excellent article by Pieter Dorsman, How Political Expediency Has Replaced Political Correctness In The Netherlands. He makes clear the muddled- and precarious- state of affairs in Holland.

…the Dutch tension over immigration and integration remains palpable and it takes very little to let it erupt. A few weeks ago, Justice Minister Donner – known for his legalistic approach to most issues – said in an interview that if two-thirds of the Dutch population would support it, the Dutch constitution would have to be amended in order to introduce Sharia law. The immediate broad public outburst over the minister’s remarks was, given their factual and legal basis in the principle of majority rule, surprising.

Nobody seemed to realize that when Donner was talking about a nation that opted for abandoning liberal democracy in favor of implementing Sharia…was one that would likely be very different from the one that the Dutch inhabit today. Donner’s scenario was thus highly speculative and even if it were to come to fruition, would, to use Mark Steyn’s estimate, not occur until the year 2050.

…What is even more interesting is the debate that ensued over the boundaries of voting in free democracies. If a situation could arise where a majority could agree to shred a constitution in favor of religious law – and one from the Middle Ages at that – than doesn’t a democracy have an obligation to devise mechanism whereby such choices could be neutralized?

We have asked similar questions.

Dr Sanity wears no rose colored glasses. In Is It All About The Narrative…Or All About Reality, she takes a hard look at Bob Woodward’s book and a realistic look at the White House.

Undoubtedly there is psychological denial in the Bush Administration. It does not take a Bob Woodward to tell us this. Within the Administration people (gasp) actually disagree on the best way to do things in this war. How unusual! How unbelievable! Or, as Woodward would have us believe, how sinister! We are, after all, dealing with human beings and human beings are flawed.
What matters more than the fact that mistakes are being made is that efforts are ongoing to correct identified errors and stay on a path toward victory. The best evidence we have that we are on the correct track are the words of the enemy themselves–not the propaganda videos of Zawahiri, timed like Woodward’s propaganda to have an effect on the opposition–but the memos they write to each other that reveal for all to see the enemy’s own “narrative of doubt” and weaknesses.

The situation in Iraq is far from optimal. Obviously the fact that innocent Iraqis are dying daily in the brutal violence there is not a good thing and the blood and chaos we are witnessing should prod us to refine and continue to improve our plan for victory. We must pay attention to the reality of that chaos, just as we must factor in the reality of the enemy’s propaganda narrative versus it’s real narrative.

…What we have are dueling narratives. What we need is a healthy appreciation of reality; and a willingness to face it and act accordingly.

Dr Sanity is clear on this point and in fact, forces readers to ask the question: Is it ecer accceptable for narrative or agenda to supplant the truth?

What is going on in Iraq, in many ways, is less about the military aspect of the war, as opposed to the political implications of the war.

It has become clear that we are fighting a two front war.

The first front in our war in Iraq is against the insurgents. Sooner or later, we will win that war.

The second front in our war in Iraq is an effort to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. That outcome is not so assured.

We noted that ‘No nation in history has ever had democracy ‘given’ to them on a silver platter- and there is no reason Iraq should be the first. While Iraqis are, tragically, the victims of most of the violence now, there are still far too many Iraqis with their ‘fingers in the wind,’ refusing to commit until the winner is clear.’ Democracy does not come about as the result of political experience. Democracy comes about because of commitment and willingness to fight for and defend freedom. ‘Democracy is built in the blood of patriots. The Iraqis- not just the army and police- will have to commit themselves to democracy, by confronting terror themselves.

Terror of the scale we see in Iraq doesn’t happen in a vacuum. People know who the terrorists are and where they are. Unless and until they step forward, we must draw a line in the sand, that we will only go so far.’

Unless and until freedom and democracy are earned and defended by those who understand the values of a free society, what we have will never be appreciated.

Many nations that lived under the boot of tyranny, admired what we stood for, and at the first opportunity, grabbed hold of freedom and democracy- because they had come to appreciate and value freedom. Living under tyranny will do that.

We recently remarked to a friend that before admiration, you have to have appreciation. If we are unwilling to defend freedom and democracy, then it is clear we do not appreciate what we have. If we do not appreciate what we have, we and the values of freedom and democracy will not be admired. If we do not appreciate our own freedoms, and if we are unwilling to fight and defend those freedoms, how can we expect our adversaries to embrace the values of freedom?

Democracy is easy, when it comes easily. Many on the left for example, that have enjoyed the mother’s milk of freedom and democracy, have no problem supporting repressive and dysfunctional regimes, because they don’t have to suffer the consequences of living under those regimes. Women, gays, religious minorities and others, are more often than not, oppressed by the very regimes championed by the left.

There are no consequences in a democracy for supporting a far away cause or extreme agenda. The left is up in arms over the Foley affair- yet they cannot be bothered to even consider the 100 million women and children that have suffered FGM.

In The “Only Religious People Kill” Meme, The Anchoress addresses a tired canard:

Over the past few weeks, I have noticed a new narrative developing, one that ponders one of the great mysteries of the universe: how come killers, mass-murderers and terrorists always seem to be “religious” people? How come you never hear about Atheists and Scientists who kill people?”

The point, of course, is that religion is subversive, corrosive, unethical and probably harmful to one’s mental health.

Today the meme hit my email box in the form of a very decent and civil missive from a secularist gent. He wrote:

The next time you read an account of assassins running amok and killing groups of innocents, try to focus on their ethical origins. Have you ever read ‘Scientist run amok, kill everyone’ or ‘ Atheists run amok, kill everyone?’ I think not. Normally, it’s ‘Muslims run amok’ or ‘kids from good christian homes run amok.’ Isn’t that interesting?

Of course, those remarks are absurd. As one of the commenter’s noted, “Religious serial killers–mere pikers compared to the secular ones. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn. Those guys killed many many millions..”

More important than the silly notion that ‘certain’ kinds of people are more predisposed to killing than are others (dysfunctional people kill without regard to race, religion, color or political affiliation), is the idea that somehow, what is ‘unacceptable expression’ to some, must be excoriated and banished from society. Curiously, it that very sentiment that was shared by Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn and a host of others, prior to their killing sprees.

In fact, a clear case can be made that whenever there is a call to eliminate ‘unacceptable expression’ or religious expression of any kind, those making the call are not far from violence or advocating violence.As anti religious sentiment increases, there is an equally thunderous silence as other groups- with very real violent or hate agendas- are ignored.