In 1946 (In Politics and the English Language) George Orwell wrote the following: [P]olitical chaos is connected with the decay of language... one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. In Huffpo, Arianna Huffington has written a good post regarding government/media double-speak. Here is the problem, according…
In 2004, George Bush was reelected. We can debate endlessly over whether or not he stole that election, but it’s beside the point for this rant. Besides, four million popular votes seems like a big wad to steal.
What we need to figure out if we want to have any possibility of turning this misdirected ship around is WHY SO MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE REPUBLICAN RIGHT? Not even just Republicans–there are decent Republicans that I would support (Arlan Spector comes to mind, as does a pre-2004 John McCain)–but the rabid fundie far right wing of the party, the wing that is destroying it and trying to turn this country into something like a theocracy.
So what was it?
The factor listed by most exit polls in Middle America was–is–Moral Values. Not in California or the Northeast corridor, but in the Heartland.
Moral Values.
I had thought for a long time that the issues driving Bush supporters floated between abortion, school prayer, and taxes. I’m now not so sure tax cuts are that important–these people have got to realize that if Bush continues his policies, at some point a huge bill is going to come due.
The furor over gay marriage in the last months of the campaign underscores the exit polls. Moral Values.
If I thought the votes were driven by the deep morality stemming from a Kantian apprehension of the nature of the right, the good, and the universalizable as determined by a focused application of the categorical …
One of the main causes of America’s Revolutionary War against Britain was the fact that British Parliament was passing tax laws against the Colonies, but was also denying the Colonists the right to be represented in Parliament to protest those taxes. “No taxation without representation” was the rallying cry that swept through the New world and solidified opposition to Britain’s dictatorial rule.
This rallying cry came thundering back into my head this week as I was reading the Bible — specifically, Daniel, chapter 9. Nearly the entire chapter is devoted to Daniel begging for God’s forgiveness, because of Israel’s failure to obey God’s laws. I suddenly realized that of the 600+ laws that God handed down to the Isrealites (the Ten Commandments were only a brief summary), *not one* was enacted with the consent, or even the counsel, of the Israelites. As I read through the chapter, I suddenly realized how absurd Daniel’s begging sounded. God did not give Daniel, or any other Israelite, any role whatsoever in making the laws that God handed down, so why should the Israelites take the entire blame for not following them? Just as the American Colonists did in the Revolutionary War, shouldn’t Daniel have objected to dictatorial law-making as fundamentally unfair, instead of begging forgiveness for not adhering to it?
Let me anticipate the Christian objection: unlike British Parliament, God is righteous and perfectly fair; therefore, his laws are, too. Really? If God is so perfect and fair, then why didn’t his elaborate …
Each of us sometimes feels the pressure of being the lone dissenter in a group. It can make you sweat and it can make your heart pound when you have to go up against the group. How strong is the pressure to conform? This topic was explored and well-documented in the 1950s by Solomon Asch, a social psychologist who pitted the human tendency to conform against the tendency to be truthful.
Asch told innocent subjects that they were going to participate in an experiment on visual perception. The subjects were to participate in groups of seven to nine persons per group. The group was instructed to indicate which of the three “comparison” lines were closest in length to a given line. Each person in the group gave his or her answer in turn. There was only one innocent subject per group, however. Everyone else in the group was a stooge who had been instructed to follow a routine prearranged by the experimenter.
The test was actually rather easy and the first three trials were simply a set up for what was going to happen next. On the fourth trial (and, similarly, on selected subsequent trials), where the given line was 1.5 inches long, the three “comparison” lines were .5 inches long, 1.5 inches long and 2 inches long. The experiment had been arranged so that each of the stooges were designated to give his or her answer before the innocent subject had a chance. On that fourth trial, the …
In the September, 2006 Harper's "Notebook," Lewis H. Lapham begins with this quote by Rainer Werner Fassbinder: In the last analysis, terrorism is an idea generated by capitalism to justify better defense measures to safeguard capitalism. Is there money to be made in Iraq? Lapham, who has wielded a sharp…