Worldview Blog

Culture War Shibboleths

Michael Lind has written a thought-provoking article, in which he suggests that liberals (and particularly liberal Democrats) compromise on some of their shibboleths, such as abortion and racial quotas, and return to an FDR-style economic populism divorced of contentious 'culture-war' issues. Only then might the Democrats regain a permanent majority status. I think this is a very sensible and timely suggestion, though one can argue, along with the libertarians, that FDR went too far in concentrating economic power in the hands of the government. Our current corporate plutocracy must not be replaced by a lumbering Soviet-style government bureaucracy. We want more fun companies like Apple computer! In addition, I would insist that we slash our bloated military-industrial complex, which is ruining our economy, strangling our freedom, and spreading its tentacles around the world. I am willing to compromise on the social issues in order to fight the enormous threat presented by creeping militarism.

Liberals really need to wake up, look outside of their urban bubble, and realize just how much animosity has been generated by the so-called culture wars. Of course, there are basic principles which must not be compromised, such as racial and gender equality before the law, but many of the contentious issues have been handled in an overbearing and ham-handed way that ignores the deep feelings of millions of Americans who do not share an urban, liberal temperament.

The Case of Abortion

For instance, take the case of abortion. Let us first admit the obvious, namely, that there really is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Of course, I favor the woman's right to choose, at least during the first trimester or so, but Roe vs. Wade was the wrong way to go about it, and it set a dangerous precedent. The issue was a hot potato, which the cowardly Congress threw to the Supreme Court. The reason Roe has survived is because most Americans do in fact want some basic rights to abortion, but Roe was still the wrong way to go about it. And when liberal pressure groups become 'fanatical' about such highly-charged particulars as partial-birth abortions, they are showing very poor judgement. It doesn't matter if this disturbing procedure is only used when the mother's life is at stake. The scurrilous Republicans can be counted on not to report this fact, so that liberals are left looking like sadistic baby killers. It would be best to compromise a bit and stop insisting that Roe's very survival depends on not budging an inch. On the contrary, failure to account for the legitimate feelings of millions of decent Americans could ensure Roe's demise.

Besides, wouldn't it be better if the abortion issue reverted to the state level? It really has no justification in the Constitution, and Congress is unlikely to pass it into law in its present form. To be sure, the libertarian in me would love it if all kinds of privacy rights were explicitly written into the Constitution, but the fact is that they are not, and we are losing even what we have, with this insane War on Terror. One could argue that the current administration's cavalier treatment of the Constitution has at least some precedent in Roe vs. Wade, notwithstanding that presidents like FDR and Lincoln also took liberties.

Anyhow, the issue of abortion is admittedly controversial and disturbing, including to many otherwise decent and intelligent but socially conservative Americans, such as Catholics, who have no particular love of the corporatocracy which rules over us. What a shame to lose them over a secondary issue! It is easy for an educated rationalist such as myself to argue that there can be no significant 'human life' in an immature embryo devoid of a highly-developed nervous system, but the reality remains that many religious people sincerely believe that a 'soul' somehow arises as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. It is no doubt superstitious materialism to identify the soul with a mere clump of cells, just as it is popular superstition to bury a corpse, expecting it to rise again, but people's feelings must be respected up to some point. Of course, this point is hard to define and depends on wise compromise and a dose of realism.

If controversial moral issues such as abortion reverted to a more local level, state or otherwise, then different communities could set different standards, depending on the prevailing philosophy. This may be unacceptable when it comes to basic rights, such as slavery or the vote, but is it so intolerable with a grey area such as abortion? Surely, the embryo does become a human life at some point, and nobody is really sure exactly when that is. Individuals in rural areas seeking an abortion could always travel to a big city or to another state. If necessary, charities could be raised to help the poor who cannot afford to travel, or who cannot afford abortions. (Of course, I realize that abortion would most likely revert to the states, but other social issues, such as pornography, are best handled at the local level.)

Racial Quotas

Another liberal blunder was racial quotas. I'm all in favor of a helping hand from the government, at least to those who are truly deserving, but this should always have been framed in terms of economic need rather than racial status. Naturally, many blacks feel that they deserve special treatment, due to our history of slavery, just as many Jews feel that the Holocaust justifies ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. But it is not so. Innocents should never pay for the crimes of others. Under such circumstances, where embittered minorities overstep their bounds, the majority should impose a 'justice' that is not framed in terms of race or religion. Government aid based on economic need passes the test, and nobody feels exploited.

To be sure, care must be taken not to saddle the middle class with onerous taxes, though if we were to eliminate corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex, then I am sure that much good could be accomplished at a reasonable cost. Remember the GI Bill! Unfortunately, the cunning Republicans have been highly successful at getting Americans to hate taxes without taking into account massive tax breaks for the rich, which must be paid by the rest of us. As usual, much of this Republican 'success' was due to the treason of the Democrats, who are equally the tools of Big Business, and who have grievously failed to serve as a genuine and populist opposition party.

There are no doubt other liberal blunders one might mention. I'll post them as updates as they occur to me.

Religiosity in Politics

POSTED (25 August 08): Today we read how the upcoming Democratic Convention in Denver is awash in religiosity, which signals quite a break in party tradition. Evidently, the Democrats have discovered that they will remain forever in the wilderness if they do not learn to appreciate the millions of silent but crucial 'values voters', who make up the backbone of our great nation and are nothing less than the salt of the earth. So the word is out that piety is in, with all kinds of priests, pastors and rabbis leading prayers, while professional politicos who just love their fancy restaurants bow their heads in humility before their God. Some Muslim women are even allowed to sit demurely in headscarves. Take that France! Faith is definitely back in style with our supposedly secular opposition party, though, as with the hardcore pious Republicans, the word 'faith' is intentionally left rather fuzzy and flexible. Why even a worshipper of Mars like John McCain can blather about his 'faith'.

I have two points to make on this topic. The first is that there is nothing inherently wrong with one's religious faith providing guidance to one's political views, provided that those religious precepts respect the core values of the Constitution. For example, holy war is out, unless sanctioned by AIPAC and the Military-Industrial Complex. The so-called liberals have the celebrated example of Martin Luther King Jr. as an activist guided by his deep religious convictions, and there were the abolitionists before that. It is simply foolish to interpret the separation of Church and State to mean that no politician may appeal in any way to his conscience, which may likely be guided by sincere convictions of a spiritual nature. However, it would show wisdom and leadership if he were to phrase his feelings in the most general terms that can appeal to the enlightened instincts of all human beings — or as many of them as possible. Few sects or denominations have any particular monopoly on common virtues. Even a Catholic's views on abortion can be expressed in terms of respect for life in general, however the term 'life' might be defined.

The second point is simply that mature and intelligent people should look askance at excessive public displays of sanctimony. Did not Jesus advise prayer in secret? There may be many fools who swallow a mere show of piety as the real thing, but democracy presupposes that most of us are adults. The intelligence of the public should not be insulted with any indulgence in empty, nauseating and self-serving rhetoric. A mature politician may briefly refer to the religious basis of some of his deepest convictions, but is he dwells on it, then he should automatically be regarded with suspicion. The context is important, and a bit of dignity and reserve never hurt any politician, something this folksy nation forgets all to often. Then again, stuffed shirts aren't much fun either, but we don't have nearly as many of them as previous generations. We live in a tacky and shameless age, even on the religious side of the aisle.

The Immigration Furor

POSTED (25 August 08): Ah yes, and then there is the furor against immigration, which is spreading like a prairie-fire throughout the grass-roots of our nation, deep in the vast heartland, if not in the urban environments that I call home. I don't have much to say about this, except for a few observations. First of all, it is true that our laws should be enforced, so that one cannot blame those who want to crack down on illegal immigration. However, this must be balanced by the fact that we winked at millions of immigrants to come across the border when we wanted to exploit their cheap labor. Many have lived here for years, or even decades, and have established deep roots in our society, while we looked the other way and enjoyed their cheap services. Thus, we are as guilty of violating the law as they are, and it is immoral to simply uproot them, destroy their family lives and cast them out. We need to have some sense of decency and fairness.

Second, there is much concern from the likes of Pat Buchanan that millions of illegal immigrants of Hispanic background do not share our values, are not likely to be assimilated, and thus pose a threat to the cultural viability of our society. Many of them, he alleges, believe that the Southwest of the United States really belongs to them and aim to get it back, by creating a massive demographic fact on the ground. Now I have the greatest respect for Buchanan's writings on foreign policy, at least since I started reading them in the last decade or so. He was against both the first and second wars in Iraq, which I quite admire, since he had to withstand the lemming-like rush to war of his own party. And he may have a point that Hispanics might not assimilate in sufficient numbers and could create dangerous fracture lines in our society. It could happen with any immigrant group, and WASPs of a previous era often felt this way about Buchanan's Scots-Irish ancestors, who could be portrayed in the ugliest terms comparable to the worst of the anti-Semitic caricatures.

All I can say is that, based on personal experience, I have a good impression of the Hispanic immigrants I have met, and they are quite a few. They seem hard-working, decent and family-oriented, for the most part. There may be some youth crime in certain parts of L.A., but this was true of previous generations of urban youth of Italian and Irish origin. It has more to do with hormones and unemployment than with ethnic identity. But to tell the truth, I am not immune from some ethnic stereotyping of my own. By and large, Hispanics seem free of the militaristic spirit than afflicts so many whites of Anglo or Scots-Irish origin, at least in this country. Diluting our grim Protestants with some partying Latins might turn into a net plus for our national culture and for our foreign policy. The rest of the world would breathe a sigh of relief as they see our zeal for sporadically bombing the hell out of this or that imagined enemy slowly evaporate. It really is a habit we need to kick. Sorry for the crude ethnic generalizations, but we really need less war and more fiesta. I'm ready to gamble on the Hispanics.

UPDATE (28 August 08): In the preceding paragraphs, I forgot all about the effect of immigration on domestic wages. I was thinking only of Buchanan's cultural issues. When it comes to wages and the global economy, I'll admit that I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I like to see China and India and other former third-world countries rise from poverty. On the other hand, I realize that this is often coming at the expense of American workers. The patriot would say that I should care more about the American worker, but as far as I am concerned, all humans are of equal worth and deserve a better life. What is truly outrageous, however, is that the plutocracy is using 'free trade' as a weapon to stimulate a 'race to the bottom', taking advantage of weak or non-existent unions in other countries to bust the ones in ours. But it goes even further than that. James Petras writes on how NAFTA has hurt Mexicans and Americans alike. The American global financiers in the 1980s induced or allowed Mexico to ensnare itself in a 'debt payment crisis' at a time when the value of its exported raw materials was declining. This enabled the banks to force vast 'liberalization' measures on the economy, which devastated millions of farmers and small businessmen who formerly were surviving under a stable if lackluster socio-economic system. Add to this the usual massive corruption at the electoral level. Thus, millions of newly destitute Mexicans were forced to seek work in the US. It's not as though they wanted to come here in order to undercut the American worker. Basically, global finance is a predatory system that targets everyone. True free trade would mean that ordinary people everywhere benefit from a rising global economy, while the capitalists make modest profits. (Note: James Petras is a well-known lefty scholar, who is not without his share of controversy, e.g. regarding the power of the Israel Lobby. On the net, you can track down an interesting exchange between Petras and Chomsky, with Chomsky viewing the Lobby as second fiddle to the plutocracy. I am inclined towards Chomsky's view on the Lobby, but I suspect both would agree with what Petras says above regarding NAFTA.)

UPDATE (28 August 08): The conflict between the white working-class and Hispanic immigrants illustrates another important point. Empires and elites have always benefitted from a policy of divide-and-conquer. In the US, this is facilitated by a long tradition of ethnic prejudice on the part of poor, uneducated whites. This ethnic prejudice is no doubt psychologically coupled to the excessive blue-collar patriotism discussed elsewhere in my recent articles, so that Republicans have no problem whipping up a bellicose foreign policy along with the anti-immigrant hysteria. Moreover, the economic plight of the working-class exacerbates their inbred prejudice, thus scoring of double-whammy for the manipulating elites. As usual, the cowardly and corrupted Democrats play along, with only minor differences in tone. An ideal solution would be for Mexicans to stay put in their homeland, while strong democratic and populist movements in both the US and Mexico work together to raise the living standards of the people in both countries, with capitalists making only a modest and reasonable profit. Unfortunately, the US has a powerful tool for short-circuiting populism in other countries, which is to buy off their elites in one way or another. In other words, the plutocracies in the undeveloped countries, no less than in Europe and Asia, are getting rich off of the same system as the US plutocrats, so that most of those who wield power around the world are quite willing to cooperate with the American ruling class. (Chavez in Venezuela is a rare exception, but who knows how long he will last. And even he may have to submit to the banks, if not to CIA meddling in his elections, or outright assassination. Then again, if he succumbs to authoritarianism, he may provide an excuse for direct US intervention. Meanwhile, the US is probably fomenting resistance and destabilization with this very aim.)

Teacher's Unions

POSTED (27 August 08): I don't know much about this topic either, but it is important, so I would like to at least remind myself that it exists. Teachers' unions have been blamed for declining standards of education, and what could be of more concern to parents? And just think what a huge portion of the electorate is composed of parents! Are teachers' unions primarily to blame for poor education? What about the role of parents? Of the national culture? And isn't the issue of education handled mostly at the local level? As I said, I am not familiar with this vast topic, what with being a bachelor. Yet I recognize its explosive potential for the left, in both a good and a bad sense. In a good sense, this is a social issue like welfare, and the left tends to do better in the public eye on such 'mommy' issues. (Well, to be precise, the Democrats tend to do better on social issues, but I have so much trouble thinking of the Democrats as being on the true 'left' anymore, with their wicked embrace of the Military-Industrial Complex.) In a bad sense, the left may be blamed, both directly for recalcitrant teachers' unions, as well as indirectly for its alleged influence on our deteriorating national culture (the 60s and all that). Also, as more of the public school system disintegrates, the suburban masses may abandon it altogether and opt for expensive private schools or home schooling. This trend is already well underway. Public schools have traditionally been a great American engine of opportunity, especially for those of modest resources. It would be tragic if we lost this vital national asset. But if I were a parent, my primary concern would be the welfare of my own children, and I would home-school them if I felt I had to.

Manners and Decency

POSTED (30 August 08): This may seem like a trivial matter that makes me look like a stuffed-shirt, but I think it's important. I am by instinct liberal on most issues, but like many conservatives I am repelled by the vulgarity that permeates modern American popular culture (i.e. since the 60s). To begin with, I greatly dislike hearing vulgar language, at least in public, though that long predates the 60s. Second, although I am inspired by some bonafide classic rock geniuses such as Jimi Hendrix at his best, I abhor the generally insolent and cynical attitude that pervades rock, rap and kindred genres. I would much rather see 2008 Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson's smiling face on TV, beaming a positive image of America to the world, than look at a picture of some rock idiot pouting and trying so hard to conceal any trace of warmth, decency and kindness. When I go to many 'liberal' blogs, especially those manned by younger people, this impudent manner, combined with profuse profanities, seems endemic. I have no use for it. I am all in favor of bold thinking, pressing the envelope, inspired and unconventional behavior, even a gypsy lifestyle, and so on, but only if it is combined with modesty, decency, kindness and human warmth. I suspect millions of Americans feel the same, and to them the word 'liberal' connotes this repellent attitude more than anything else. As I said, this may seem like a trivial and pedantic issue, but I feel quite certain that it has a powerful and unfortunate effect, greatly impeding the spread of progressive ideas to the general public. Before listening to you, people will judge you by the impression you make.

Online Articles

Michael Lind: Democrats should choose FDR over McGovern

James Petras: Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire

MyWay: Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology

Back to the Home Page