[Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Evangelical Rebellion by Chris Hedges

[Morton K. Brussel]

I have the conceit, Carl, that Bryan would have evolved had he lived  
until today.

Cheers and Happy New Year.

--Mort

On Dec 30, 2007, at 11:57 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> I don't think it's clear that the people whose reading of Origin of  
> Species and Genesis you disagree with are necessarily stupid or  
> ignorant (and I don't agree with them either).
>
> Bryan, e.g., who's been made a figure of fun so that his politics  
> could be forgotten, saw that evolution was being used in the early  
> 20th century to justify rapacious capitalist practices -- what we  
> tend to isolate as "social Darwinism" but was part of the  
> progressive view a century ago. It was for example the basis of the  
> eugenics movement in America, which the Nazis acknowledged showed  
> them the way. (A cousin of mine was a principal figure in the  
> movement.) Bryan's politics are certainly to be preferred to those  
> of his president, Woodrow Wilson.
>
> Cockburn is disturbed I think primarily by the gap between the  
> pretensions of the American political system and anything like real  
> democracy (which American liberals fear, because they think that  
> the people are stupid and ignorant).  --CGE
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> Some value intelligence and knowledge among other qualities, even  
>> for leaders in government, and abjure stupidity and ignorance.  
>> Necessary, if not sufficient, reasons to govern wisely. In their  
>> disgust and abhorrence at current (and past) politics and  
>> policies, some are ready to turn to anything and anybody  
>> different, or perhaps nothing--nihilism. An example is,sadly, the  
>> truly disturbed Cockburn.
>> --mkb
>> On Dec 30, 2007, at 7:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> Seems pretty sober to me.  The Left that Cockburn has in mind is  
>>> the sad American version, synonymous with liberals, and  
>>> represented by, say, the Nation magazine (and, indeed, Chris  
>>> Hedges).
>>>
>>> The American version is of course only a simulacrum of a Left as  
>>> the term has been used for two centuries, because it's abandoned  
>>> the Left's defining characteristic, attention to class struggle.
>>>
>>> The Left in the US has been reduced to a matter of thinking the  
>>> right thoughts and using the right language (what used to be  
>>> called "identity politics," until it became the norm).  It's all  
>>> a matter of symbolic analysis, in Robert Reich's term: you can't  
>>> diss Darwin or believe in resurrection, altho' it's a bit hard to  
>>> see what those terms have to do with politics.  (In fact, I think  
>>> the latter does, but probably not in Evangelicalism, which seems  
>>> to me a relatively simple material heresy.)
>>>
>>> American politics have to be bumped over into the symbolic arena  
>>> because there's no real contestation over policy.  The  
>>> presidential campaign means very little because all the "serious"  
>>> candidates (Republican and Democrat) support the same policy --  
>>> on the war, health care, the economy, etc.  It doesn't matter  
>>> which of the actual candidates is elected because policy is  
>>> doubly insulated from politics -- the policy is not under debate  
>>> and political discussion is about irrelevancies (cf. Darwin).
>>>
>>> Americans (outside of the ideological institutions --  
>>> universities and the media) recognize this and conclude correctly  
>>> that the presidential campaign has little or nothing to do with  
>>> them.  It's a game played by those designated -- show-business  
>>> for ugly people.   As a result, the actual policies of both  
>>> parties -- essentially two business parties -- are substantially  
>>> to the right of the views of most Americans.  (E.g., 80% of  
>>> Americans say big business has too much influence in the USG.)
>>>
>>> Alex I think would buy most of this, and it's in that context  
>>> that he discusses Huckabee (and Paul).  Remember he started as a  
>>> political reporter and is here simply assessing the chances of  
>>> candidates, without the moralistic fury against a Baptist  
>>> minister who dares to run. (A fury incidentally not shown to M.  
>>> L. King, another Baptist minister.) He considers the possibility,  
>>> over against the monoglot media, that Huckabee could be a  
>>> "genuinely interesting candidate," even a "wild man" terrifying  
>>> the political establishment like Bryan (a rather admirable figure  
>>> although "another implacable foe of Darwin") or Wallace  
>>> (certainly less admirable).
>>>
>>> Surveying the US presidents from Reagan to Bush, can you  
>>> seriously doubt that "any imbecile could be head of state" (or  
>>> government)? But the problem is not that they're stupid -- in  
>>> some ways they aren't -- but that they do vicious things.
>>>
>>> I don't agree that "lack of experience and knowledge about the  
>>> rest of the world is one of the principal problems right now in  
>>> American government."  Liberal critics of the Vietnam War used to  
>>> say that the US had stupidly blundered into a situation there (a  
>>> "quagmire") that it didn't understand.  There was no blunder --  
>>> it was just hard for US Liberals in their naivety to believe that  
>>> that people they went to school with would kill 3-4 million  
>>> people to teach the Third World a lesson.  But they did  
>>> (successfully), just as Clinton and Bush have killed millions in  
>>> order successfully to maintain US hegemony over ME energy  
>>> resources.  And Clinton-Obama-Edwards-Romney-Giuliani-Huckabee  
>>> will do the same. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme *pose*...
>>>
>>> Regards, CGE
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss