In Progress - Chris Berg

Rhetoric & Current Climate

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:29:26 -0400

I’m rapidly becoming certain that the effectiveness of shoddy argument and strawman “enemies” in our current political climate has much to do with the relegation of rhetoric - in popular conception - to style, artistry, or useless, empty speech practiced by lying hucksters. People don’t seem to realize that any statement that is used to convince a public of a need for change - in action, even if from inaction to action, in policy, in approach, or in thinking - is rhetorical. Constructing an Axis of Evil, for instance, is a rhetorical action. “The Terrorists” ® are a rhetorical construct.
These laughable creations allow our President to create such laughable comparisons of Iraq to the Third Reich (from what history tells me, the Wehrmacht was far more resistant and put up a much stronger fight than the Iraqi army). It allows him to tell us - without our questioning of the origins of his statements - that “The Terrorists Hate our Freedom.” It allows him to tell us that “The only way to save our Freedom® is to give up some of our rights,” a rhetorical sleight of hand that disrupts the common cultural association of rights and freedoms.
When we don’t approach claims through a rhetorical lens, it allows rhetors to take advantage of our assumptions and fears of “THEM,” to create a fictional entity that becomes the Anti-Us, a possible source of destruction, thus allowing fear for survival to overcome our rational mind, even if subtly and in the background, deep within the ID, sparking irrational reactions from rational beings.

Virtuality, Chaos, Analog, Affect

Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:35:17 -0400

The virtual is that which is perceived entirely within the mind: it is potential, mediated by the synesthesia of past and current perceptions and experience, hyperreal and hyperfast. At the same time, it is both inaccessible to the senses and figured - constructed - by them. Brian Massumi states that “The virtual that cannot be felt also cannot but be felt, in its effects. When expressions of its effects are multiplied, the virtual fleetingly appears. Its fleeting is in the cracks between the surfaces around the images” (p. 133). The virtual is made evident by that which is unarticulated; it is in the chasm of the unexpressed in all images, both visual and verbal: “since the virtual is in the ins and outs, the only way an image can approach it alone is to twist and fold on itself, to multiply itself internally” (p. 133).
The resulting overimage of every possible variation and digression of an image superimposed upon the center of the original creates the unity of continuous separation and reflexivity that characterizes the experience of the virtual: imagination - as a thinking feeling (or a feeling of thought in its movement), of felt-only thought beyond physical sensation - is the word that most of us would use to describe the “differentiating vagueness” of the virtual.
Massumi claims that topology - a qualitative science, not empirical, with no predictive value - is the ideal analog by which to diagram or model the virtual, a sentiment with which I agree: the topological is process only, referential only to variation, with digression and variation intimately mapped in a physical space. It is potential, or possibility, realized, which is, perhaps, why even topology cannot fully encapsulate the virtual: it ceases to develop at some point, and while potential creates the event, a convergence of active possibilities made present and referential to one another, it cannot be exhausted fully in one instantiation. The actual occurs where the possible (physical rules) intersects with the potential (embodied in participants and entities and ideas) and the virtual (as the sub-subconscious of alternative states).
Deactualization: a mode of thought, processual excess over the actual. It does not replace the actual, rather, it doubles and redoubles it, augmenting its states. Both quantification and qualitative transformation involve deactualization: quantification participates in instrumenal reason (thinking out possibilities), and qualification is addressed by “operative reason,” which deforms into contingent reason, or “thought bending back to participate in its own emergence from sensation, imagination, or intuition in Bergson’s sense” (p. 136). Further deactualization processes include codification, easily understood in the context of “the digital” as “zeros and ones.” “Digitization,” notes Massumi, “is a numeric way of arraying alternative states so that they can be sequenced into a set of alternative routines” (p. 137). He feels that this is ultimately a weakness, reducing possibility to set programmed steps. The medium of the digital is possibility, he says, not virtuality: it doesn’t approximate potential.
In a way, I suppose, this is true, but in effect, the greater the number of zeros and ones, the larger the file, the more potential for variation. This hearkens back to traditional deconstructive notions of language: the more words in a sentence, the further complicated meaning becomes. Still, codification implies limitation at some point, and this is doubly true when manipulating digital artifacts within any interface, which governs what can and cannot be done to that artifact. In the end, digital technologies connect to the virtual only through the analog: photo editors, word processors, blog applications, etc. What is processed is not the word or the artifact, but its encoding. The artifact itself is only apparently real upon the screen: the image of a page with words upon it: it is a real apparitional (a genuine appearance of an artifact) rather than an artifice.
Thus the web: an accumulation of analog effects codified into digital sequence.

Political Musings - Linguistic

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:31:21 -0400

Political discourse provides an interesting example of a culturally codified signifying network in action. Everything we read, everything we believe about politics and process is in some way mediated through a socially negotiated set of linguistic principles. American political language is, above all else, flexible, mythical, and dualistic. Metaphor is rampant, and among the most deceptive elements of political language: we believe that we are under control of what we say; however, in adopting and using metaphors, naturally limited terms, we are in turn controlled by the social forces that created them (see Hart et al, 2005).
News - whether through television, print, or web media, continually constructs and reconstructs the issues of the day, shaping our political process through a cycle of threat and amelioration. The limits of mediation and the needs of society turn political actors into synechdochal representations of ideological movements (see Edelman, 1988). These representations are, as I noted above, frequently dualistic: the means by which we define our politics through media are established by longstanding practices of journalism schools. Schudson notes that journalism is made up of two parts, “a set of concrete social institutions,” the signifying network of the social lexicon through which we communicate, and a “repertoire of historically fashioned literary practices,” focusing on the conflict in every story. This conflict is - as it must be, focused in a dualistic/binary of good/bad, team one/team two.
Political problems are also linguistic or communicative in origin: Edelman (1988) states - accurately - that “Problems come into discourse and therefore into existence as reinforcements of ideologies, not simply because they are there” (p. 12). In other words, political problems are representative of adverse conditions as perceived by individuals subscribing to a particular ideology. Occasionally, this problem will be opportunistically proposed: emerging problems presented as more threatening will divert public attention from existing ones that may cause greater long term harm. As Paul Virilio states in Speed and Politics (1987), “The government’s deliberately terroristic manipulation of the need for security is the perfect answer to all the new questions now being put to democracies . . . they are trying to recreate Union through a new unanimity of need, just as the mass media phantasmatically created a need for cars, refrigerators . . . We will see the creation of a common feeling of insecurity that will lead to a new kind of consumption, the consumption of protection” (p. 139).
More later...

Government

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:29:50 -0400

I’m starting to think that the love/hate binary with which Americans view their government is a side effect of our system: in absolute or totalitarian regimes, government is there, and there’s nothing that anyone can do about it. They accept its dictates for the most part, and just move along. We’re different. We’re taught in civics class that we are the government, that we control it, and that it is both our duty and responsibility to maintain it. The trouble is, when we grow up, we become disillusioned when we learn that this idea is - for the most part - full of crap.
It’s why we deride big government in elections: we want the government to do for us what we want - a sort of consumerist ethos that goes along with our capitalist economy - but we don’t want to pay for it: defense, education, healthcare, and on and on. The current government is the establishment - our vote embodied - and we engage in this sort of self-flagellation every four years to punish ourselves for the mess we got ourselves into.

Intelligent Fools

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:18:14 -0400

There is a particular breed of person that has begun to flourish in modern America, one who grates on almost everyone I know: the intelligent fool. This person manifests his existence in several ways, however, he is most likely to appear in one of the two following forms: either the bitchy pseudo-intellectual with a sense of entitlement who works in book stores or coffee shops, or the book critic. There are interrelating characteristics found in both that bear exposure and help one identify the underlying foolishness of otherwise bright people.
The first of these, the whiny store clerk/barista who believes the world owes him something just on the basis of his unrecognized brilliance, is perhaps the most annoying. The average example of this individual is a college dropout who was seen as the “disaffected poet” while in high school; someone who didn’t see how a university education could possibly benefit him and therefore decided to quit school “to spend more time with his writing” (the graduate of a liberal arts program who actually finished his degree, but still has the same sense of entitlement, is usually this person’s manager). He sighs when asked questions related to his job, as though wondering why such a brilliant individual must put up with the mundane questions of the commercial sellouts who come into his store. This sigh, mind you, is the predecessor of the snicker he’ll emit to a similar co-worker after the customer has gone in search of his book: the snicker that pokes fun at all literary tastes not in keeping with his own.
The clerk in question must always qualify his occupation with the phrase, “until I finish my [insert art form].” The trouble with this is that nobody who is too lazy to put up with the hassles of completing a college degree will ever have the work ethic necessary to complete a novel. Most successful novelists will tell you that writing is a full-time job; that overcoming a writer’s block requires the mental endurance equivalent to running a marathon. The other trouble is that, although many have talent, they abhor the idea of publishing popular fiction that will earn a living: that, they believe, is selling out.
This idea of selling-out is precisely why I label them pseudo-intellectuals. Most of them buy and read books that may as well have “Sartre-Mimicry-of-the-Month-Club-Main-Selection” stamped on the front cover. They are snobs and obscurants who read difficult works with impressive catch phrases that they then proceed to spout whenever they get a chance (no matter how inappropriate the situation): thus proving, in their own minds, how much better they are than everyone else. They loathe popular fiction, disdaining the capacity of “the masses” in choosing books that appeal to their current situation. Popular fiction cannot be literary in their minds (a trait they hold in common with some book critics mentioned below): if too many people like something, it lacks “artistic integrity,” a meaningless phrase invented to appeal to the pseudo-intellectual mind.
What these people refuse to recognize is that today’s popular fiction, in many instances, will become tomorrow’s literature. Shakespeare was not trying to make life difficult for the modern eleventh-grader; he was trying to fill the seats at the Globe. While linguistic and cultural evolution may make his work difficult for some modern readers, the work is not literary simply because it is difficult; rather, it is literary because the themes within the work appealed to massive numbers of people in his time – some, indeed, still resonate today. Likewise, the same idea applies to novels: most (not all) works of what is termed “classic” literature today were bestsellers in their own day. The list is impressive: Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones, Charles Dickens’s Little Dorritt and David Copperfield, Thomas Hardy’s Return of the Native, James Fenimore Cooper’s Deerslayer, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, James Joyce’s Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake, and many others. These books appealed to great numbers of people because they addressed contemporary thoughts and issues as well as certain “timeless” themes (for lack of a better word); and as such, they provide modern readers with a glimpse into vanished societies that hold ideas still true today.
In order to feel better about their current situation, the clerk who fits my description will deride all those who enter his limited domain as having no taste. He will mock them for purchasing the latest Stephen King novel; simply because he is jealous that both his customers and the writers they read are happy with their lives. He feels that because he is bright, he should be handed a book contract so that the rest of us can read the drivel he chooses to share with us - in order that his complex and intellectual thoughts can reach the unenlightened masses. He fails to realize that most of us read what we do because it serves some purpose: it illuminates aspects of our lives in an entertaining matter or allows us to escape from whatever difficulties our day has to that point engendered.
Certain book critics share literary tastes with these clerks. They feel the need, as frustrated novelist wanna-bes, to criticize the bestseller lists for lack of taste. Most of them, in fact, do not even consider genre fiction to be literary in the slightest. They will cite a lack of touch with reality or “escapism” as the reason for their derision of science fiction. While they do not share the belief that literature should be difficult, they do believe that lack of reality in fiction automatically precludes its validity as an art form: art, they say, should reflect reality.
Most science fiction readers read their books to escape from reality, to journey into a world wherein good is rewarded and evil, punished. There is, in fact, a good deal of literary tradition that science fiction and fantasy coincide with, although these critics cannot see this. To explain: one of the most common themes in American literature is the orphaned boy, noble at heart, who sets out in a corrupt world to make a life for himself. Along the way, he will experience a direct confrontation with evil (either a person or situation), and end up wiser: he retains his nobility and goodness, maintaining his separation from corruption, while learning how to avoid that corruption. At the end of the road lies the good life.
Instances of this theme abound in our cultural dialogue: Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, Deerslayer, and The Great Gatsby will suffice to name some of the literary instances. This theme is also prevalent in the cultural ideal of “The American Dream.” Science fiction and fantasy are merely modern reactions to the idea: they take this story, which doesn’t seem viable in a modern, cynical, uncaring world, and place it in a universe where it can happen. The growing abundance of science fiction following the first and second World Wars attests to this feeling that the story is more realistic in an unrealistic setting. The growing popularity of the genres can denote the modern reader’s need for a hope not found in some “realistic” modern works of fiction. The stories are universally about the triumph of good over evil, something that people want to read about more and more as the prevailing worldview becomes more bleak each year.

Nobody Gives a damn about the constitution anymore

Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:49:37 -0400

In our self-serving, myopic society, the ultimate authority that groups of like-minded political ideologues turn to when trying to make a point is the Constitution. Citizens of the United States protect, almost to a fault, the few rights they care for in order to best serve their own beliefs; but at the same time, they ignore or seek to trample rights that are important to others. In reality, of course, nobody really gives a damn about the Constitution: they really only want to look out for number one.
I’ll begin with conservatives. Conservative ideologues have recently adopted the liberal stance on free speech, whereas before they opposed certain forms and modes of speaking; this is because, largely, conservative ideologues have had their speech repressed for a long enough time that it only makes sense for them to again raise the standard of the lionized First Amendment. Conservatives also support the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms. Most of them do so in a sensible manner, stopping at the point of arming the citizenry with grenade launchers, and I respect their stance immensely. It is in keeping with the mythical, historical ideals of the United States that an armed citizenry is much more secure against a totalitarian takeover or hostile invasion than one in which rocks, sticks, and steak-knives are the only protection.
There is a problem, however (and when isn’t there?). Many of these same patriots who speak so passionately about preserving the constitutional right of the citizen to speak as he must and protect himself, if necessary, with lethal force also support the suppression of certain rights in order to prevent terrorism. So long as their home or person is not the one in question, they fully support the violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments:
AMENDMENT IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
AMENDMENT VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
They fully support the “sneak and peek” rights granted to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies by the Patriot Act, so long as those in question, whose library records can be seized, homes searched, and can be held without trial indefinitely are “terrorists” (read: Muslims). In other words, so long as their own rights are not violated, they could care less about those of other citizens.
While they now claim to support the First Amendment, the conservatives have apparently forgotten the final clause contained therein, that abridgement of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” is expressly forbidden. Case in point: the Republican National Convention of 2004, held in New York City. During the convention, several thousand protesters gathered peacefully nearby and planned on marching by Madison Square Garden, wherein thousands of rich solipsists were gathered to nominate John Wayne for president.
The protesters, while “assembled peaceably,” walking quietly in a line, carrying signs containing grievances they wished the Government to redress, were descended upon and arrested. Belongings were confiscated and hundreds were charged with “disturbing the peace,” because they “had no permit” for their protest. They must appear in court, possibly pay a fine or be jailed for ninety days, because they had no permit for something that the Constitution states they need none. What is the conservative defense of this? Almost to an individual, the conservative response is, “In times like these, some rights just have to take a back seat to protecting freedom.”
What they mean, of course, is that the rights of others must be suppressed because those others disagree with the powers that be. They don’t mean that some rights have to take a back seat; they mean that other people’s rights have to take a back seat. If the government decided that, in order to prevent possible terrorism, all firearms not in the hands of law enforcement or the military would be outlawed, on the remote chance that some terrorist, somewhere, will decide to open fire on a crowded street or concert hall, these people would be up in arms (pun definitely intended), bitching about the abridgement of their Constitutional freedoms.
It is precisely this “us or them” mentality that drives politics that has led some conservative lawyers to disenfranchise as many possible Democratic voters as possible. The phenomenon is limited to conservatives, at least in every news report I’ve seen, most likely because liberals, in their sickening sappy coddling of every person they find, would never think to perform such a sneaky, underhanded, fascist (but clever) act. The way this trick works, the attorney examines the voting rolls for his precinct, searches public records for any reason he can find, and then petitions a judge to remove that person’s name from the rolls. In their view, an extended vacation lasting from July into October is an indication of relocation outside the voting precinct.
Having spent my ire against conservatives, I’ll turn now to the liberals. Liberals have traditionally presented themselves as supporting the rights of all, even those with whom they happen to disagree. There has never been a greater whitewash of the truth. The conservative oppression of the First Amendment is light when compared to the liberal usurpation of speech. Above, I mentioned the Republican National Convention of 2004 and the subsequent arrests. This event, one involving a national gathering of “important people,” was splashed all over the news. Every day, however, in cities across America, there are liberal attempts at suppressing the gatherings of conservative groups: NRA conventions, “protection of marriage” meetings, the WTO riots in Seattle, and countless Ku Klux Klan marches are interrupted. I do not say that I support the Klan, however, the hypocrisy in claiming to support the First Amendment rights of all citizens while qualifying the speech with “not THEM!” is – while not quite as absurd as a white supremacist – quite asinine in itself. Why not simply say what you mean (and by this I include conservatives as well as liberals), “I fully support your idea to speak in theory so long as it does not interfere with my own limited worldview?”
Liberals are the first to oppose the Second Amendment. They will tell you that assault-style weapons were never meant for the home, that you cannot hunt with a semi-automatic pistol, and that nobody really needs a gun anymore. They do not realize that hunting is not the reason that the pistol, the rifle, and various other weapons are purchased. At the same time, they do not realize the purpose of the Second Amendment. Both are intended for protection; and whether that protection is against home invasion, or against the inception of a possible police state, the Second Amendment is a necessary article in the Bill of Rights. There is a reason for each amendment in that Bill of Rights: they are almost sacred cows, untouchable, because if one could be repealed, then others could follow.
The slow takeover of the political system by the judiciary was initiated by liberals, who fought in the courts against any law they deemed repressive of individual rights. Most civil rights laws are upheld by judicial decree, and sexual harassment was only made illegal through the courts at first. Liberals resorted to this measure precisely because, at the time, they were the ideological minority in government; and any opposition to judicial ruling by conservatives was pointed to as evidence of conservative evil (a tautological, falsely logical statement if ever there was one).
In the early 1990’s, however, the liberals found themselves, for the first time in years, as a majority. Conservatives adopted liberal tactics, taking to the courts to reverse decisions and laws against their beliefs. In their unreasoning hatred of Bill Clinton, their fury at a baby-boomer taking the helm of the government, they tried, through the judicial system, to undo the election of a lawfully elected and sworn President of the United States. The fact that their case was based on their labeling as a high crime a married man lying about an affair with a young woman from the office aside, liberals now proceeded to complain about conservatives trying to impose their ideology through judicial, rather than legislative means.
I have a feeling that this trend will continue in the future, that our system has become so corrupt, so competitively “us or them,” that smear tactics and political buffoonery will only get worse, and never improve.

Television

Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:22:00 -0500

Television, as an institution in American society, is rapidly losing appeal to me. Aside from the fact that much of what we watch celebrates the worst in each of us; it is also one of the most repetitive forms of entertainment available. I am not saying that all television is bad. There have been many fine hours of entertainment and a good deal of information that has been disseminated through this medium. There have been memorable characters on occasional shows for as long as I can remember. I will confess: I have been a habitual watcher of many sitcoms (Friends, MASH, and The Simpsons); news programs such as 20/20; and once upon a time, MTV (when it played music videos for more than the insipid hour of TRL).
I am never one to complain about how great things were in the way-back-when as compared to the present day. Times change. People change. It is a facet of human existence that modes of popular entertainment will change as well. I do, however, feel inclined to express my great disgust at the fact that Americans spend more time in front of the television than they do living their lives. On the cover of the “Life, etc.” section of my local newspaper, there was an article that discussed the fact that Americans now spend more time alone at home than ever before, eschewing socialization with others to sit around the house. Beneath this article, which I read with great interest, I saw something that made me believe once more in irony: just below a brilliant article on the decreased social habits of Americans there was a column devoted to what was new on this season’s television shows, entitled “What to Watch.” I think it was at this point that I had to bury my face in my hands and shriek with uncontrolled laughter. Either the layout editor didn’t see the irony in what he was doing, or someone was trying to make a point: I wish I could believe the former, but the latter is probably the more true.
Not only do we spend our lives in front of a television set, slowly losing days of our existence on this planet; but we also plan our lives around the various forms of garbage emanating from it. How often does one hear people mention that they must be home by a certain time, in order not to miss “their” shows? People pay a good deal of money for the privilege of saving these shows so that they can spend the weekend watching drivel. Radio morning show hosts discuss television non-stop; rather than current events or the foibles of local and national leaders, they’ll babble on incessantly about what will happen in the next episode of whatever they watched the previous night.
So what is it, then, that drives us to sit at home, night after night? What is it that is so imperative that we place our own lives on hold to sit in front of a glowing box? Take a look at the most popular shows, and something might just pop out at you. We sit, we munch, and we watch “reality” on television. Are our lives so pathetic that we feel the need to stop them for the night to watch other people live? We are denying ourselves actual experience for the purpose of viewing the actual experiences of other people; and, by doing so, we create a trend of more “reality” television – more life wasted by watching others live.
None of the “reality” shows truly represent reality, however. This is why the networks who produce these shows will put out an “uncensored” version of the reality show; which is a good marketing scheme so far as I can tell: if people are stupid enough to waste their lives in watching trash, perhaps they’re stupid enough to shell out fifty dollars so they can see some real “reality” – some girl’s breasts, some guy acting drunk, people making out in a hot tub, some other guy getting punched in the face, and on, and on, and on. We are lining the pockets of the very people who are robbing us of our lives; all so we can see other people doing what we really want to pretend we could do – what we actually could do, if we were so inclined.
I am tired of hearing about children doing poorly in school. I’m tired of hearing teachers blamed for students’ failure to succeed. Rather than accepting responsibility for our inaction and failure to lead by example, we must pass blame and place failure squarely on the shoulders of those who least deserve it. People ask themselves why their children have trouble reading, why they can’t focus for more than a short time span on any task; and then proceed to blame the educational system.
If blame must be given, then blame the actual source of the trouble. Rather than place a child in front of a television set so they’ll shut up and leave you alone; rather than sitting together in front of mind-numbing trash; lead by example. If your child spends five hours a week in school reading and is told by a teacher of the importance of literacy, and then goes home to watch sixteen hours a week of television either with the blessing or presence of his parents; what opinion will he have on the matter? Who is he more likely to observe and emulate, a teacher or his parents? Try once more to blame the teacher for the inability of a college freshman to write a simple, effective paragraph.
See? You can’t do it.
Photo Credit: Daniel Horacio Agostini

Witch hunts, organized anarchy, and other absurdities

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:10:23 -0500

Around once a year, there is some story the media seems to latch onto that becomes the focus of many American lives for several months, even years. The O. J. Simpson trial, the Clinton Sex Scandal, the George W. Bush-is-Satan Campaign, and countless local graft scandals each become, for a limited time, the subject of hours, days, weeks, and months of jargon-filled babble and the issue-of-the-day book. It is fascinating to me how many versions of the truth appeared within one month of the Monica Lewinsky case’s initial publicization.
One such issue that attracted my notice immediately was the recent case in West Virginia involving a Winfield High School student who wanted to form an Anarchy Club. The national media focused on this case instantly: the liberals wanted to call out the Free Speech goon squad; while the conservatives wanted to keep this disgusting example of negative ideology from corrupting our youth. While on the one hand, I support the idea that any system of education would look down upon and repress the notion of a student club that is inherently anti-system; I also support the idea that any club devoted to discussing political ideas deserves a place in a school: traditionally the location of idea formation.
What I suppose irritated me most about the whole case was the fact that the girl had taken it upon herself to draw up a system of bylaws and rules in order to become an organized club. Nobody, it seems, said anything about the fact that anarchists have a belief that all systems of law and rule are oppressive and unnecessary. The very idea of organized anarchy is contradictory: it is impossible to create a system that is anti-system. How could the Anarchy Club have officers? How could they justify a need to pay dues?
In the interest of brevity, I’ll end this diatribe right now. Let us now proceed to political witch-hunts. For some reason, Bill Clinton irritated Republicans to no end. They felt the need to remove him from office at all costs (including so many billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars). They focused on a single aspect of the man’s personality, his weakness for women, and exploited it to the fullest. In a single-minded drive to eject him from office, conservative politicians decided to use his extramarital affair against him: he cheated on his wife with an intern, and therefore was evil.
Never mind the excuse: look to the hypocrisy. One of the leaders of this drive, Newt Gingrich, had cheated on his wife and left her for another woman (while she was bedridden with breast cancer) – yet it was President Clinton who had no family values. Receiving oral sex from someone not one’s spouse may be a reprehensible act, but it is in no way criminal. Nevertheless, years were spent trying to oust a president from office for adultery. The justification used was that he lied about it under oath – Clinton perjured himself. Ask yourself this, though, what man in his place would not do the same? There should never have been an opportunity for him to lie about the subject, because the president’s sex life is no business of ours.
Liberals, in a righteous rage, argued that this was nothing more than a witch-hunt, that conservatives were picking on the president and that this trial was nothing more than an abusive search for any reason to say, “See, I told you he was bad!” Conservatives protested that they were only trying to point out that personal integrity was a chief personality trait that our nation needed in its leaders. They argued that if he would lie about sex, he would lie about more important things.
Fast forward to the weapons of mass destruction debate over the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States. President Bush argued that he felt that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that those weapons posed a danger to the United States. I am no fan of “W,” but I am inclined to believe that he did, in fact, act in the best interests of the United States as he saw them. I do believe that he is stupid enough to assume that such an impoverished and backward nation as Iraq was a rapidly rising nuclear power. Never mind the fact that he pronounces “nuclear” as “new-cue-ler,” which says disturbing things about his alma mater; the most important issue at the time, the liberals argued, should have been the hunt for Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Conservatives argued that liberals were unpatriotic (which is their code word for “picking on us”) and that they should blindly support anything the great and glorious leader undertook. They called the furor a “witch-hunt” and said that investigations about presidential integrity would waste tax dollars. Liberals protested that they were only trying to point out that personal integrity was important, that if a president would lie about such important issues, something had to be done about it.
The point to which I am arriving is becoming apparent, at least I hope. Both sides of this debate are accusing the other of something of which they have been participants themselves. Both sides feel so much hate toward the other that they will do anything to prevent their own side losing ground. Conservatives accuse liberals of engaging in negative propaganda in order to win votes away from their chosen leader: they cite Michael Moore’s work, the columnist Molly Ivins, and the number of books (most recently Kitty Kelly’s biography of the Bush family) appearing that seem to fit the profile of political propaganda. Liberals accuse conservatives of the same thing: they cite the Starr report, Fox “News” Network, and Bill O’Reilly as examples of anti-liberal lies and deceits perpetrated by Republicans.
Aside from the extraordinary entertainment provided to those able to extricate themselves from personal views in order to see how foolish both parties are acting; little is gained by the finger pointing. Conservatives are not, as liberals are wont to suggest, attempting to solidify a power network of rich white men to rule everything. Many genuinely believe that what they are doing is right: they are governed by certain principles that are traditional (hence conservative as a label); that worked quite well for them and, they believe, will work just as well for others.
Liberals, contrary to prevailing conservative views, are not unpatriotic. They are not communists or traitors. There is nothing more difficult than trying to explain to a conservative than the fact that dissent is a facet of American society guaranteed by the Constitution; and the mere existence of an opposing viewpoint is not an indicator of sympathizing with the enemy. In most of my conversations with liberals, they indicate a deep love for the United States; however, rather than unquestioning acceptance of all administrative policies, they believe that the best way to govern is through constant questioning of the benefits and detriments of said policies toward all citizens.
The next aspect of political polarization that requires examination is the idea of the separation of church and state. Many conservatives will point out that, while the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, there is nothing specifically in the Constitution that provides for the separation of church and state. They will point out that Thomas Jefferson mentioned the idea in a letter, and that since there is no provision regarding public worship or religion, they should be able to post the Ten Commandments wherever they want.
The media are full of stories regarding the separation of church and state. The case of an Alabama Supreme Court justice who built (at great expense) and installed a statue of the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse was highly publicized. The “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is under constant attack by liberal groups. Prayer in public schools is another issue that will surface on occasion; as does (shockingly) the teaching of evolution (which some religious extremists like to term “evil”lution).
As mentioned above, several conservatives will state that the separation of church and state is not legally the responsibility of the government. However, the fact that “Congress will make no law respecting the freedom of religion” is, in itself, a separation of church and state. Individuals in the United States have the freedom to worship or not worship as they choose. While the Ten Commandments may be a nice set of rules to live by, they originate in religious practice. Forced viewing in a public school of the Ten Commandments by one who is not Judeo-Christian is an endorsement of religious views, an establishment of religion in a public forum.
Forcing children to pray in school when they do not subscribe to a religion that believes in prayer is establishing a religious practice in school. Children will pray in school, if they believe they must: many students pray before final exams, and many Muslim students must pray facing Mecca several times a day. I’d like to see the reaction of a conservative who is told that his child must pray in school, with the qualification that he prays on a mat facing Mecca and must pray to Allah. I’d also like to see what would happen if a school board composed of Wicca zealots told parents that their high-school students, having reached maturity, would participate in a nude fertility rite to be held on the school football field.
The teaching of evolution is touchy. If Biology instructors were forced to teach the creation myths of each major religion, there would be no time for Biology and the class would become a philosophy forum. Simply stated, while some people would rather not face the scientific evidence in favor of evolution, it has been scientifically proven by disinterested, neutral scientists from all over the world. Citing a “study” from a scientist seeking to prove only that the world is six thousand years old and that humans magically appeared in the image of God does not constitute science. If a parent prefers his child not hear the theory of evolution, he need only inform his child that such facts are inconsistent with the mythology he subscribes to.
The term “creation science” gives me a headache; because it is a paradox in the first place. “Creation science” relies on the Bible, a mythology, as a scientific text. Teaching the Bible in school being forbidden by the provisions prohibiting the establishment of religion by the government, this idea needs serious revamping. Most subscribers to the idea, in fact, learned the idea in church, where it belongs and must remain. Educators have only so much influence on a child: if a parent disagrees with a certain ideology, his child most likely will as well.
One argument against the separation of church and state is that some religious folks say that it is not in the constitution. This is a technical fallacy that has no grounding in reason (as much religious thought evinces). The freedom to practice whatever form of worship a citizen desires is protected in the Constitution; and the separation of church and state is directly derivative of that. No citizen has the right to impose his beliefs on another forcibly: no governmental official has the right to legislate morality. Each citizen of the United States has the right to believe in whichever morality he so chooses, so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others. Imposition of puritan religious beliefs is a hostile ideological attack on the millions of agnostics and atheists, each of whom can believe however he chooses. Freedom to believe goes hand in hand with freedom of speech.
I believe strongly in political debate. It is the lifeblood of our country: without it there would be no freedom. The pendulum will swing, as is its nature. I am fascinated by the consistent belief that the nation is in a downward spiral; that in such heated debates lays the ultimate end, through polarization, of democratic society. The opposite, in fact, is true. In constantly exposing the negatives of either side, we educate ourselves as to what is positive. If there were none to examine the actions of our leaders, those leaders could rapidly establish total control. If there were none who believed so deeply in their God that they would expose themselves to national ridicule; then the government could freely impose whatever beliefs they so wished (including atheism) upon society.
I do not abhor debate. I relish in it. Debate, such as it exists, prevents more violence than can be attributed to it. If it were necessary to begin a revolution to destroy an evil in our society, we would quickly deteriorate into armed camps. The debate of our political system provides all views a chance to air their grievances and share their solutions for problems. Conservatives may, indeed, be jerks; Liberals may be crybabies: perhaps, after all, these are good things.