To: Lawry and anyone interested
From: Rog the Centrist with strong Libertarian tendencies.
LAWRY:
...We had the fortune to
have a group of world-class intellects formulate the foundations for
American independence and its governance ( e.g. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson,
Hamilton, et al). I can't think of any time in history when that has
happened to the extent that it did here (though I wouldn't be surprised if
there were some, somewhere). At same time, we had the Second Great
Awakening, led by firebrand populists (e.g. James O'Kelly, Lorenzo Dow, and
Elias Smith) who asserted that the common sense of plain folk was authority
enough in both religious and political matters.
ROG:
I think your point is well made. The US consitution was heavily influenced
by intellectuals in a culture prone to ample "firebrand populism."
LAWRY:
Yes, I am referring to the response of the Bush administration to the
WTC/pentagon attacks, including the bombing of Afghanistan, but even more so
to the language that the Bush administration adopted (war, terrorism,
crusade, dead or alive, they seek our destruction, etc.) It is a language
based upon a mythic view of the world, and not one of logos.
ROG:
Odd. The language and response of The US as led by Bush have been
startlingly appropriate and successful in many people's view -- and I
wouldn't characterize all these folks as ignorant. From an MOQ perspective, I
think he has been quite wise in addressing the issue at the social level --
as portrayed by the "Axis of evil" term and the recognition that we can't
hurl theory and arguments at terrorism -- we need to respond with force. Of
course, this social force is backed with intellectually advanced technologies
that allowed the allied forces to take Afghanistan with vitually no
casualties and with remarkably few civilian deaths (compare relative success
of current hi-tech weapons to the brutal swath of civilian deaths caused by
weaponry used in WWII).
It seems to me that you are dismissing the current President by equating his
ideas with thought-less 'firebrand populism," and fundamentalism. Certainly
the Republicans do cater to and are influenced by the religious right in the
US, but it would be just as easy to point out the foolish constituencies
pandered by the Democrats.
LAWRY:
I would point to several examples of what I termed 'odd twists and turns':
Wilson's Fourteen Points vs. our policies at the Sevres and Lausanne peace
conferences after WWI; our values of supporting self-determination for the
peoples of the world vs. our behavior in Vietnam of inhibiting it.
Internally, of course, the tolerance of slavery vs. Civil War manifested one
of these twists and turns.) Others: our support for Israel vs. our
insistence that it (and the UK and France) withdraw after its 1956 attack on
Egypt; our urging Latin American countries to adopt democratic ways vs. our
support for regimes there that are characterized by death squads and utterly
corrupt elections. Our upholding the international rule of law vs. our
unwillingness to have it applied to US nationals abroad (e.g. re.
extradition policy).
ROG:
Again I don't follow the logic. I guess I agree that there are competing
factions and worldviews in any large society, and that this can contribute to
swings between extreme and even contradictory positions or actions. However,
it seems a stretch to define these issues around the US's
fundamentalist/intellectual dichotomy. For example, the contradictions
between our actions in Vietnam/Latin America and our democratic principles
can probably be explained more as a temporary casualty in the social battle
against world communist domination than by our fundamentalist/intellectual
polarity.
LAWRY:
1)The fundamentalist
tradition included the idea that one didn't have to study things to know
their essential truth,
2)one could know essential truth simply through faith
and the goodness of human instinct.
ROG:
I won't argue with either of these points, however, I thought fundamentalists
leaned more toward believing in the inherent evil (sin) in man. I haven't
read any of your fundamentalist references though, so I assume I am just
missing something here. Any guidance would be appreciated.
LAWRY:
3) So it is viewed as acceptable to
formulate major opinions of difficult subjects without really studying
things or knowing much about them.
Ditto, re the historical emergence of this mythos-based system of
beliefs in the US. For its current applicability, I simply point you to the
quality of the 'debate' over our response on Sept. 11...,
ROG:
Do you see where I get the impression that you are just dismissing ideas that
you disagree with as ignorant? Somewhere in your reasoning between points 2
and 3 you seem to be connecting a bridge between fundamentalist wackos
rejecting intellectual values and the current government of the US being
"pro-ignorance." I am sure they could have done some things better and
researched some things more thoroughly, but I can't see that you have made a
case that the US or the current administration is especially content with
ignorance.
> 4) Our news media are not required,
> therefore, to reflect careful thinking, true journalistic reporting, or
> careful adherence to the facts.
ROG:
One of my responsibilities back in the early 90s was in Corporate
public/media relations -- a job that I was particularly ill suited for, btw
-- and I definitely found that depth is absent in most news agencies. They
are much better at sensationalism and controversy than information or
accuracy.
However, I don't think that our roots in religious fundamentalism have much
to do with the issue. I think the media is simply more into entertainment and
appealing to the broadest (ie lowest) common denominator -- or as you go on
to explain, that they are over-influenced by schedule. I also agree with you
that more focused, more intellectual, higher-quality media are available for
those interested, and I agree with you that the situation isn't unique to the
US (but which just brings me back to questioning your original chain of
reasoning)
LAWRY:
The
Washington Post does a pretty good job on technical policy matters, though
on hot issues they tend to go with the mass media, e.g. Sept 11. It is only
within the last month or so that we see the Post beginning to raise real
questions about Bush's policies...
The Bush administration is a wholly unreliable source of
information on current events. I do believe that they think they can pretty
much say anything and people will accept it as accurate, but I think we are
seeing an administration that is profoundly ignorant, mythos driven (and so
faith is enough to justify any policy or assertion), and suffering from
cognitive chaos.
ROG:
Here you go again. You seem to have formed a worldview that is both contrary
and dismissive of the current administration. I certainly have my
differences with them too, but this doesn't mean that I dismiss all their
ideas and policies as ignorant cognitive chaos rooted in backwoods
fundamentalism. Nor does it mean that I evaluate the quality of media on a
scale of how opposed they are to right-wing views.
Earlier I suggested that we look at this issue from a social/intellectual
level perspective. I think the MOQ offers many insights. I am not sure if
it is accurate to oversimplify the issue and state that conservative is
social and liberal is intellectual. However, if we use the original
definitions of the words, I think we wouldn't be too far off. Today though I
think that there are competing social/intellectual elements in both
positions/parties.
The MOQ would suggest we value both levels, that we use the appropriate
MOQ-level of response depending upon the problem, and that intellect should
be the guide. It warns though that the modern western intellect has defects:
1) it has no sense of values, and
2) it is still somewhat immature in its rebellion from social control. In its
struggle to free itself, it has made the mistake of associating social values
with the enemy. It has yet to fully learn that it needs to guide and
preserve quality social values that control biology or that protect against
lower-quality social patterns.
But I could be wrong,
Rog
PS -- I find the extreme right and the extreme left both as leading directly
to disaster. Both views scare the hell out of me. IMO, every successful
modern society has found balance somewhere between the extremes and they have
invariably used the extremes to control and offset each other. Madison had it
right from day one!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST