Sunday, December 27, 2020

A Law of Medes and Persians?

Senator Robert Taft was a unique politician. Although a Republican—and a formidable political opponent of President Harry S. Truman—he wasn’t a cookie-cutter party clone; indeed, he had some serious disagreements with some of his own party members. If his principles were at stake, he chose principle over party.

In Profiles of Courage, John F. Kennedy said of Taft,

“Those who were shocked at these apparent departures from his traditional position did not comprehend that Taft’s conservatism contained a strong strain of pragmatism, which caused him to support intensive Federal activity in those areas that he believed not adequately served by the private enterprise system. Taft did not believe that this was inconsistent with the conservative doctrine; conservatism in his opinion was not irresponsibility. Thus he gave new dimensions to the conservative philosophy: he stuck to that faith when it reached its lowest depth of prestige and power and led it back to the level of responsibility and respectability.”[1]

What a concept! A politician whose principles embraced human need. I suspect he believed the oft-quoted axiom, “That government is best that governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”[2] In the simple eloquence of the sentence, I agree; however, I suspect few people recall, if they ever acknowledged, that last part: “because its people discipline themselves.”

Henry David Thoreau took the phrase further in “Civil Disobedience:”
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, – ‘That government is best which governs not at all.’” However, Thoreau didn’t advocate his dictum as a rigid “law of Medes and Persians.” He qualified it thus: “…and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.”[3] (Italics mine)

In my lifetime the Medes and Persians have infiltrated America’s political right and are gaining increasing influence, plowing ahead without any semblance of Senator Robert Taft’s pragmatism. Today’s right would jerk the rug out from all who are dependent upon government relief, without regard to circumstance or to the validity of need. Indeed, the hell-bent drive to remove government pays scarce attention to any human vulnerability—or even worse, dismisses it carte blanche as the result of laziness and poor decisions, and thus unworthy of assistance. (“Let ‘em eat cake.”) To say the political right has prioritized principle over human need would be a gross understatement.

It seems obvious to me that the primary focus of the current Republican party is to remove all boundaries and limitations from the corporate world and to allow American economy to free-fall into abject oligarchy. In doing so, they totally disregard the second part of their beloved maxim, namely, “…because its people discipline themselves.” There is no indication that corporate American has any interest, intention, or ability to discipline itself. But, the political right expects the poor to discipline themselves.

I appreciate the few Republican Senators and Representatives who have refused to accept the ring through their nose, and who demonstrate some degree of free-thinking ability; but, alas, they are a shrinking breed.

What bothers me most about the sell-out to oligarchy is that some of its most visible and verbal spokespersons are Bible-thumping self-proclaimed evangelicals. I emphasize the term, “self-proclaimed,” because their behavior doesn’t align with the “evangel” (good news) from which the term originates.

Where does their evangelical oligarchy reflect, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me”? (Matthew 25:35-36 NRSV)

Where does it reflect, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21 NRSV)

Where does it reflect,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
        to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
    and recovery of sight to the blind,
        to let the oppressed go free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

The cliché cop-out is “But Jesus was addressing individuals, not the government. Let the individual philanthropists and the churches and the non-profits take care of that. Leave the government out of it.” (Meanwhile, let the government bail out the largest and wealthiest corporations in the world. You see, they want to be very selective about what areas the government should “govern least.”)

The cop-out misses a very important reality: philanthropists, churches and non-profits already are operating pretty much at full capacity, and their efforts and resources don’t begin to touch the enormity of need. Indeed, churches are in serious decline.

Which brings me back to John F. Kennedy’s comment about Senator Robert Taft, namely, that he believed in “intensive Federal activity in those areas that he believed not adequately served by the private enterprise system.”

I agree: “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.” I agree: the current system of government assistance tends to foster dependence and parasitic abuse (although such examples are relatively rare). So, change the system to foster growth toward independence! It’s been done before—briefly! THEN let the government “govern least.” Such a radical suggestion is beyond the capacity of today’s blog. But stay tuned. There’ll be more.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim



[1] John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: HARPERPERENNIAL MODERNCLASSICS,1956) p. 195.

[2] The quote is most frequently credited to Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience; however, it appears earlier in “United States Magazine and Democratic Review,” founded in 1837 by John O’Sullivan.


Sunday, December 6, 2020

A Cult of Denial

 

Beyond COVID-19 (as if that weren’t bad enough!), we’re enduring a pandemic of denial. I have no corroborating data, and my sources are limited to social media, personal conversations, online or radio/TV sources, and the op-ed pages of a few printed sources. Nevertheless, within that limited scope, the denial pandemic is contained almost exclusively to the right of socio/political/economic center, and the farther right one goes, the more widespread is the pandemic.

Within my limited field of observation, the infecting virus seems to be “thuh guv-uh-mint.” If any manifestation of government is related in any way to any issue, there will be opposition and denial from the right of center. It makes no difference whether the issue is beneficial or destructive. If government is involved, it will be rejected.

I seriously wonder, had the government issued a prohibition against wearing masks, would we have seen . . . Oh, never mind.

An article in a recent edition of the Washington Post began,

Americans heard the pleas to stay home. They were told what would happen if they didn’t. Still, millions traveled and gathered during the Thanksgiving holiday, either doubting the warnings or deciding they would take their chances. Now, like any partygoer waking from a raucous weekend — feeling a bit hung over and perhaps a tinge of regret — the nation is about to face the consequences of its behavior and will need to quickly apply the lessons before heading into the doubleheader of Christmas and New Year’s.”[1]

Denial. It’s too early to determine the article’s accuracy; however, evidence from the overwhelming majority of leading medical scientists has been confirmed many times over since the pandemic began. Still, the cult of denial asserts its doctrine of liberal conspiracies, saying “leftists” are using the pandemic to seize power and to pad the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.

Denial. Then there’s right-wing denial of the recent election’s validity. A question occurs to me: If the Democrats were going to “rig” the election, don’t you think they’d want to rig the senatorial votes, too?

The Post article concludes:

“Public health messaging needs to be retooled, as whole swaths of the country are simply tuning out the warnings from officials and experts.

“We have to rethink how we’re communicating. Blaming people, yelling at them, stigmatizing them — clearly it’s not working,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “We have to show compassion and empathy. Understand where people are coming from and persuade them to do otherwise.”[2]

Improved communication always is a valid goal; moreover, I like the way the quoted virologist takes responsibility for trying to resolve the obvious impasse, rather than simply blaming the denying public. It's a good model for all of us! Still, if communication is to be dialogical, both sides must decide to listen—LISTEN—as well as to articulate their points. When minds are made up, …you know the rejoinder: “don’t confuse me with facts.”

And already, before a vaccine is ready to be dispensed, the deniers are up in arms. The anti-vaxxer cult published a recent meme on Facebook saying, “We have the flu vaccine; but we still have flu.” The implication is clear: it’s the antivaxxer theme song.

Yes, we still have flu. It’s a viral infection that needs annual vaccination because it mutates. The same likely will be true regarding the coronavirus. Moreover, only 40% of Americans utilize the influenza vaccine on a yearly basis,[3] thus diluting the vaccine’s overall effectiveness.

Furthermore, antivaxxer logic loses credibility totally when one considers vaccines for smallpox, diphtheria, polio, and other historic pandemics.

Moving on: consider the rampant denial of racism. Within my small circle of acquaintances, those who deny racism seem to take every comment about racism as a direct accusation that they, personally, are racist.

Hand-in-hand with the denial of racism is the denial of “white privilege.” White privilege does not imply that whites don’t encounter difficulties; but white people’s difficulties do not result directly from their skin color. It simply is not enough to be non-racist. We need to move toward a cultural climate of anti-racism.

The cult of denial is just one of many clearly identifiable characteristics of the deeply entrenched tribalism that divides our nation into antagonistic factions. The hostilities are accelerating, and I fear armed confrontation is inevitable unless the trend can be reversed.

The reversal of national antagonism depends upon the willingness of all parties to accept their human limitations, including the possibility that their ideologies are not infallible. At best, human ideologies represent partial truth. I repeat here my belief in absolute truth, although I believe it is humanly impossible to comprehend truth absolutely. Truth always is strained through the filters of human perception and circumstance. I refer to St. Paul: “…For now we see in a mirror, dimly…” (I Corinthians 13:12 NRSV)At best, our comprehension of truth is incomplete.

Every position along the left/right socio/political spectrum represents a relative imbalance vis-à-vis the greatest good to the greatest number of people, and about the needs of society versus the needs of the individual.

The Church is in the season of Advent, and I am struck by the parallels of human brokenness addressed by the Hebrew prophets eight centuries before Christ compared to the latest headline of any current newspaper. The words of the ancient trumpets of God remain as valid today as they were 2,800 years ago. The cynical Preacher was right: What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NRSV)

I see reality through the lens of a Christian pastor; nevertheless, virtually every major religious faith upholds similar ideals, and the truth, as I see it, is that human brokenness has not yet been surrendered to those universal truths that call us to peace and justice and love.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim