[Peace-discuss] Does Cheney Make Obama Look Good Enough?

[John W.]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

Yes, "a great many 'ordinary' voters identified with Palin, thought she was
> great, found her refreshing [and some] voted for the McCain ticket because
> of her" -- indeed, people from the 80%, many of whom would probably not have
> voted otherwise.  That's why she scared the liberal elite (in the 20%) and
> why they were in such a frenzy to denigrate her.


Well, she scared ME, in pretty much the same way that McCain scares me (and
Obama, for that matter).  I'm scared by anyone who is so frightened of
"terrorism" that they think we have to kill everyone who is different from
us....or who tries to manipulate our own fear of "terrorism" in order to
achieve unstated objectives that involve killing those who are different
from us.

I don't think Palin was/is that sophisticated, though.  I think she herself
has been manipulated by the "political class" (I can't bring myself to call
Dick Cheney part of the "liberal elite"), and is incapable of independent,
critical thought.  One of the most incapable people, in fact, that I've ever
had the misfortune to see in public discourse.

In other words, the "political class" didn't particularly need to distort
who Sarah Palin was.  They basically just sat back and allowed her to be
herself, and eventually to self-destruct.



> And -- though I have no brief for her politics (except perhaps preferring
> them to those of Joe Biden, but that's not much of a contest) -- she seemed
> to me to play her cards rather smartly.


Given that she had only a pair of deuces at best, yes, she probably did play
her cards smartly and well.



> You DON'T agree with that common Christian understanding? I thought I was
> citing a commonplace. You'd find it hard to find a Christian theologian over
> twenty centuries, from Paul to Barth, who agrees with you.


Oh, dear!    =:-O



> Here's one from the middle of that tradition, (almost) at random:
>
>  "God loves all the things that exist.


Sure.  He created everything.  The creator always loves his/her creation.
Although at one point God did destroy just about everything human, and
started all over again.  "It repented God that He had made man," it says in
Genesis.



> For all existing things are good insofar as they exist; the very existence
> of each single thing is good, and so also is whatever it rises to.


Sez who?



> Now it was shown (in the preceding discussion) that God’s will is a cause
> of things, and consequently that -- insofar as it has reality or any
> goodness at all -- each thing is willed by God.  God therefore wills some
> good to each existing thing, and, since to love is nothing other than to
> will some good to some existing thing, it is clear that God loves
> everything.


OK.  At the very outset I acknowledged God as Creator and Source.  "God is
love", I quoted.  So He loves everything.  So what?


>"Yet not as we do.  For since our will is not the cause of the goodness of
things, but is instead moved by >their goodness as by an object, our love in
willing good for a thing is not the cause of that goodness.

Now here you have to distinguish between ultimate causes and temporal
causes.  God is the ultimate cause of the goodness of things.  But in the
temporal sphere our own love - motivated by God's love and an imperfect
manifestation of it - can be the cause of a great deal of goodness.  It's
like we are little mini-creators....which is precisely what God created us
to be.  I have many scriptures to support that.


>Instead, the thing’s goodness -- real or only imagined -- evokes our love,

No, not necessarily.


>by which we will that the good had by the thing should be preserved and
that the good lacked by it should be >added to it -- and we act accordingly.
 God’s love however is a love that pours out and creates the goodness >in
things."

This discussion illustrates why I dropped out of Philosophy 101 as a
17-year-old after the first class.  Words, words, words.  Why are we
discussing all this?  What's its application in the real world?  Why did you
bring it up, Carl?  How, concretely, does this relate to me being - or not
being, as you aver - a "man of the people"?


Dominus tecum, CGE


Et Dominus tecum also - however you say "also" in Latin.  I missed out on
the whole Catholic Church experience.  More's the pity.



> John W. wrote:


>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:22 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:
>> galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> When I said Palin "had to be" ignorant, I meant, in the mind of the
>> political
>> class: she couldn't be anything else, in their conception, because of her
>> class background.
>>
>>
>> But why is this important?  Most voters are not in the "political class".
>>  A
>> great many "ordinary" voters identified with Palin, thought she was great,
>> found her refreshing.  Some, I doubt not, voted for the McCain ticket
>> because
>> of her.
>>
>> In point of fact, she wasn't anything else but ignorant.  And it had
>> little
>> to do with what the "political class" (of which McCain is a member) wanted
>> or
>> needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was of course no objective necessity that she be ignorant.
>>
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Registrar of the Political Class is considering your request to
>> withdraw.
>> I'll let you know...
>>
>>
>> Please.  I'll be waiting with 'bated breath.
>>
>>
>>
>> And I'm glad you love the ignorant people very deeply.  And of course you
>> agree with the common Christian theological understanding, that, while our
>> loves are caused by things (e.g., a person's goodness), God's love causes
>> things.  --CGE
>>
>>
>> This is an odd and almost incomprehensible statement, essentially
>> irrelevant
>> to the majority of peace-discuss readers who are not Bible scholars.  And
>> of
>> course I do NOT agree with this common(?) Christian theological
>> understanding,  except to the extent that God is the Creator and the
>> Source;
>> God IS love.  We, who are created in His image, embody (imperfectly) His
>> love
>> and His other attributes.  As a Christian, my love is not dependent on
>> another person's goodness or lack thereof.  It is dependent only on the
>> extent to which Christ indwells me and motivates my actions.
>>
>> Beyond that, it's a feedback loop: My love, such as it is, both causes
>> things
>> and is caused by things.
>>
>> Am I on the right track at all, Carl?  Would you like to lecture me on
>> your
>> uncommon(?) Christian theological understanding, and the deficiencies of
>> my
>> own understanding?
>>
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:23 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think Palin was particularly ignorant (cf. Joe Biden, Dan Quayle).
>> She just had to be, given her class background.
>>
>>
>> Palin didn't HAVE to be anything.  I can cite any number of examples -
>> myself
>>  included - who came from a similar class background but who transcended
>> it through education, open-mindedness, a desire to learn, whatever. No,
>> Palin was and is ignorant, and there's a strong element of choice involved.
>>
>>
>> And I hate to tell you, John (actually I don't): your polyarchy
>> credentials are in order.  In the US, formal education is a class marker
>> more than
>> elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Well, here's Chomsky's definition which you quoted:  "A polyarchy is one
>> in which a small sector of the population is in control of essential
>> decision-making for the economy, the political system, the cultural system
>> and so on."  I may have a formal education, but I ain't in control of
>> nothin'
>>  but world music at WEFT.  That IS part of the cultural system, I guess,
>> but it's an awfully small part.  My polyarchy credentials may be in order,
>> but I never got hired by the polyarchy.  I never applied, for that matter.
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid you can't be a man of the people whom you despise. --CGE
>>
>>
>> Well, Carl, it's a bit of a balancing act which can be very difficult at
>> times.  But no matter how often you assert it, it is simply not true that
>> I "despise" "the people".  One can love people very deeply while thinking
>> they're ignorant at the same time.  Obviously you couldn't possibly have a
>> very clear idea of what Jesus was about either.  Would you care to assert
>> that He died for them because of their "essential goodness and wisdom"?  If
>> so, I've got a multitude of scriptures that prove you profoundly wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:41 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
>>
>>
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>>> wrote:
>>
>> I wrote
>>
>> McCain was the best thing Obama had going for him during the campaign
>> (altho'
>>  Palin helped by mobilizing class resentments that couldn't be admitted
>> openly)...
>>
>>
>> --and was asked about the meaning of the clause in parentheses. I meant
>> that
>> Palin's background allowed the soi-disant educated to look down on her.
>>
>> Chomsky was asked about his assertion in his "Manufacturing Consent" that
>> 20
>> per cent of the population that goes to college and holds important
>> positions
>>  within the capitalist democracy are the sections of the population that
>> need
>>  to be brainwashed under freedom.
>>
>> He replied, "The 20 per cent figure is not mine. It is a standard notion
>> in
>> political science called the 'political class,' the class that is actually
>> active in public and economic affairs. This roughly constitutes about 20
>> per
>> cent of the population. From the point of view of the propaganda or the
>> doctrinal system they are a different kind of target than the rest of the
>> population.
>>
>> "Remember, the United States is not a democracy - and has never been
>> intended
>>  to be a democracy. It is what is called in the political science
>> literature a polyarchy. A polyarchy is one in which a small sector of the
>> population is in control of essential decision-making for the economy, the
>> political system, the cultural system and so on. And the rest of the
>> population is
>> supposed to be passive and acquiescent. They are supposed to cede
>> democracy
>> to the elite elements who call themselves, rather modestly, the
>> 'responsible men.' 'We are the responsible men and we take care of the
>> affairs of the
>> world.' The rest are sometimes called a 'bewildered herd' or a rabble or
>> something like that. Actually, I am quoting Walter Lippman, the leading
>> figure in U.S. journalism, and a leading public intellectual of the 20th
>> century..."
>>
>> The political class in America is taught to hate and fear the 80% as
>> uneducated, racist, religious, and proto-fascist.  (Tom Frank's "What's the
>> Matter with Kansas?" is a sophisticated version of this teaching of
>> contempt;
>>  it's been seriously challenged by various people, notably Larry Bartels.)
>>
>> The liberal elite, which makes up a good bit of the political class, was
>> shocked and appalled that someone who seemed to belong to the 80% -- and
>> an
>> attractive woman at that -- should dare to presume that she might run for
>> national office.  So there was a great effort to denigrate her as
>> "uneducated, racist, religious, and proto-fascist" -- regardless of her
>> politics.
>>
>> Among other things, the reaction reveled the fear among the liberal elite
>> that the 80% might become politically active. Don't they know their place?
>> She and they belong to the "bewildered herd..."
>>
>> Palin, whatever her politics, was a challenge to the polyarchy in a way
>> that
>> Clinton and Obama were not. That's where the rage and scorn heaped on her
>> came from. --CGE
>>
>>
>>
>> So it wasn't Palin's ignorance that appalled me?  Or maybe, since I'm not
>> a
>> member of the polyarchy, it doesn't matter what I think or why I think it?
>>
>> You have a tendency to make simple things complex, Carl.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090527/0f9a25ed/attachment-0001.htm