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

[C. G. Estabrook]

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.

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.

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.

Here's one from the middle of that tradition, (almost) at random:

   "God loves all the things that exist. 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.  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.

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

Dominus tecum, CGE


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.