Feelings, nothing more than feelings: on the culture of victimhood and death of the intellect

{Update: this is particularly useful to read since college students across America are "traumatized" and "need hugs" given the fact that Trump was elected President}.


The year was 1968. The television network ABC was plummeting in its ratings, and they needed a quick fix. Something controversial. It was the time of both Republican and Democrat National Conventions. ABC wanted to have commentators, so they paired up two enemies: William F. Buckley, Jr. - a conservative, writer, founder and editor of National Review, and host of Firing Line, and Gore Vidal – a liberal, writer, commentator. Buckley and Vidal were to debate on television.

And debate they did. It was during one of those debates when Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-Nazi,” and Buckley responded by calling Vidal a “queer.”

It would have been really easy to solely focus on this infamous moment, but filmmakers Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville took a different approach in their documentary Best of Enemies (2015). They use the intellectual relationship between Buckley and Vidal as a way to examine the political consciousness of the people at the time, as well as the role of the media then and now.

Whenever one encounters a documentary film that deals with both conservatism and liberalism, there is a tendency to assume that it will surely be biased, favoring one side over the other. I will admit that when I saw the trailer for the film, I had a trepidation that it might be leaning more toward the left, therefore attacking Buckley and favoring Vidal. But it truly wasn't like that. Gordon and Neville treat both Buckley and Vidal as human beings and actions of each men speak for themselves.

The film finely balances individual biographies of Buckley and Vidal and a larger picture of state of political debates. Wherever you look these days, “the talking heads” are shouting at each other. Some say things that are more interesting and true than others but for the most part, there is no interest in an actual exchange of ideas or reaching of intellectual conclusions.

The film opens with the tour of Vidal's Italian home. We enter into Vidal's bathroom where he shows us photographs of himself, proudly of course, and there right above the bathtub, are some of shots of the debate with Buckley. Vidal is a hedonistic elitist and when he is speaking, there is a kind of ooze released from him. He was fiercely intelligent but, to echo Buckley's brother's words in the documentary, I cannot help but feel slightly nauseous from Vidal's words.

“Why are the races unreconciled? Why does poverty persevere? Why are the young disenchanted? Why do the birds sing so unhappily? It is easy to be carried away, and yet always there is a strain of seriousness, something in the system that warns us, warns us that America had better strike out on a different course rather than face another four years of asphyxiation by liberal premises.”

These were Buckley's words, and he certainly had a way with those. He used the English language in a variety of unusual ways. Although I do not think that Vidal was better or even Buckley's match in such an endeavor, I do think that he was a good intellectual adversary.

They both represented a particular way of American consciousness – a distinctly American battle between the sacred and profane. For Buckley, sacredness and preservation of order of things was of utmost importance.

For Vidal, shaking the metaphysical foundations of America via sexuality was what was on his mind and what came out of his pen. Before it was “fashionable” and these days, dreadfully dull, Vidal wrote (namely, in his novel Myra Breckenridge) about transgenderism and any other kind of game of sexual behavior. He got a rise out of shocking moral Americans, who undoubtedly would shake with horror and wag the religious finger at the sexual perversions of Vidal's writerly explorations.

Whether he intended to shock people or whether he saw a genuine need to explore the issue of gender, Vidal most certainly got a rise out of disturbing Buckley. Buckley always prided himself in never being shocked by the strange behavior of the Left, but something about Vidal touched a personal nerve. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that Vidal was so offensive, addicted to smearing dirt over the purity of the sacred.

Either way, it would appear to me that both Buckley and Vidal were slightly uncomfortable in their own skin in order to face each other in a non-defensive way.

Another aspect that Best of Enemies touched upon is the lack of intellectual dialogue today. All we are left with are talking heads, pundits, whatever you want to call them. (The ending of the documentary shows a cacophony of voices that ends with bizarre cackle of Megyn Kelly).

This is true. Love him or hate him, agree or disagree with him, Buckley created an intellectual space in America for a genuine and civil exchange of ideas. One had to be prepared to argue one's point with a strong back up, which often included experience rather than purely ideas.

Buckley was what you might call a public intellectual. He was able to bring together people from the Right and the Left, and even those who were apolitical. For him, the American Square was not just about politics. It was about culture, and culture was about the order of things, and order of things was necessary for the survival of civilization.

It isn't that the tension between the sacred and profane did not exist in the past (far and distant one, or a more recent one). It is that, today, we do not know the difference between the sacred and profane.

This is partly due to identity politics, which are inextricably linked to the “philosophy” of victimhood. Intellectual disagreement means being metaphysically offended. Those who wallow and hide behind the many masks of identity politics do not have strong philosophical arguments for their positions. So, when they are called out on it, the cry to mommy, and claim that they have been attacked and demand safe spaces. In the words of Tom Hanks: “THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!”

We see this practically every day. Here are just a few examples from the last week or so:

1. Newt Gingrich gets into a heated argument with Megyn Kelly. He calls her out on her journalistic inadequacy. He is labeled a misogynist.

2. Christina Hoff Sommers is about to deliver a talk at Columbia University on victimhood and academic freedom. Posters of her talk are defaced and student organizer of her talk gets pretzels and cereal thrown at her by the opposition. Pretzel logic?

3. Professor Tony Esolen is protested against at Providence College for writing an article titled “Succumbed to the Totalitarian Diversity Cult.” The students who protested wrote a letter to the president of the college with main point of how such article “made them feel.”

Victims everywhere! Even from a purely psychological stand point, I am not sure how can one derive the meaning of life on being a perpetual victim. This is a pathological problem. It is also a multi-faceted problem: one that involves academia, politics, public square, anti-intellectualism. All of these have one thing in common: lack of freedom of speech. The order of things is subverted under the guise of empathy and diversity. Change the meaning of words, and a lie will become a truth.

It is a sad state of affairs, my friends. We should welcome ALL of the intellectual positions (be they sacred or profane). However, they have to stand on their own merit and power and validity. 

{Best of Enemies trailer}

Immigrants, Citizens, and Cultural Assimilation

Criticizing America is easy. Let’s face it: there is plenty to criticize. When I first came to the United States in 1996, I was a bit disappointed. I could not see that unique American ambition and passion that I thought existed. People seemed dejected and lazy. And I have never in my life seen so many fat people! Ok, so, maybe I saw too many 80s movies when I was a kid and I was naive in my expectations! :) Despite the naivete, which I am sure every immigrant has felt to a certain extent, I still have to say that my immediate experience felt hollow.

First few years were brutal. We were poor, barely making it. To buy a t-shirt at the Gap was equivalent to buying a Chanel or Yves Saint Laurent! (Just for clarification purposes: now I can afford the Gap t-shirt, but alas, I’m still far from haute couture. :)). I was seventeen and enrolled in public high school, 11th grade. Students being students when faced with otherness would say silly and mean words to me, convinced I could not understand them. But I already spoke English so they stopped quickly. Some people thought that I needed an “explanation” on how to flush a toilet, which was an “interesting” experience. The beginnings are always tough and alienation was inevitable. So, I turned to what I know best: studying.

There is so much more to my story, but I begin this short essay with a brief bio because I want to say a few words about cultural assimilation. America was a “culture shock” - but then again, any new environment is. And yet, it is easy to adapt to the new ways of daily life. One simply has to in order to survive. It seems completely obvious to say this but I did not expect Bosnia in America. At first, I considered myself a guest. Then, I was a Green Card holder. And after that, I became a naturalized citizen. I observed and evaluated immediately what I had to do to adapt in order to succeed. I think that most Bosnian immigrants have done the same.

How much should an immigrant assimilate? What does that even mean? Preserving one’s cultural heritage in the United States is not difficult. We see this everywhere: from cultural organizations to restaurants. The point is that one has the freedom to honor one’s past because it cannot be erased. It should not be erased. Part of my soul is still in Bosnia and it will always be there - this is a fact of every immigrant as they relate to their country of origin.

Another important point is that everyone has the freedom to worship God in their particular tradition, as well as to not believe in God. And at the same time, thank goodness that we do not live in theocracy.

An assimilation is a strange word. It has a connotation of disappearance, of complete change, of getting rid of anything, which reminds one of where they came from, and some choose to do exactly that. But one does not have to disappear. At the same time, one can become and remain an American. 

The way I view “assimilation” is the understanding of and belief in the US Constitution, and it is the only necessary assimilation. This was not hard for me because I already believed in those principles of humanism. Any other “assimilation” had to do with practical matters, and those, I assure you, did not threaten my existence or were catalysts for an extinction of my Bosnian soul.

In a letter to James Madison dated January 30th, 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” The American experiment is certainly not free of its paradoxes and weaknesses. However, when a citizen begins to pervert the Constitution, we are surely looking at the dismantling and a destruction of the American essence. The country will cease to be what it was meant to be: a refuge for those who need protection and freedom to be. Such notions have to be protected (while being mindful of the dignity of human life) and I deem that to be a duty of every American citizen.

Please Don't Compare Muslims to a Bowl of Candy

The level of intelligence in public discourse on any issues is currently in a rather messy state. It is the loudness that counts. On one hand, Facebook has paved the way for anyone to voice their opinion (including myself), which is great. But everyone has an opinion, and it’s not necessarily always well-informed or rational.

One example is a post that’s been floating around that is comparing refugees to a bowl of M&Ms. It is supposed to be an analogy that goes something like this: there is a bowl of candy in front of you, and you want to devour it, but some of the candies are poisonous. You wouldn’t want take that risk in eating them. The point being that out of all the Muslim refugees, there will be some that are terrorists and we can’t take that risk. Trying to talk about a complex issue with an analogy that fits more into the context of a middle school math problem is preposterous and ultimately, counter productive. There is a better way to propose a freeze on immigration for the time being.

Although not quite simplistic, news agencies are also guilty of reducing problems into neat and comfortable ideological boxes. In both instances (and this includes either a liberal or a conservative framework - or what remains of those definitions), the players are so powerfully committed to the ideological narrative that any possibility of an intelligent dialogue is lost.

As a Bosnian Muslim, I have attempted to engage into discussions explaining what kind of Islam I grew up in, trying very hard to prove that not every Muslim is a terrorist and an extremist. The fact that in my case, it was the Muslims who were mass murdered in the war somehow does not matter. For the most part, I have been dismissed because I am just one voice. Since when one voice doesn’t matter, particularly in America?

I do not intend to waste my time in proving that I am “normal” or that I am a “moderate Muslim” or anything similar. I am Muslim by birth and I am Bosnian - this is my history. I am also an American, who chose to come to this country, and who admires its principles as found in the Declaration of Independence.

What I am proposing is a change in the process of discourse. Gone are the days of William F. Buckley, Jr. and The Firing Line, and such things cannot be revived. We should certainly not engage in nostalgia or idealization of WFB. But there is something to be said about how Buckley approached discourse. Sitting down with one’s interlocutor, trying to find out what is on his or her mind (and may I add, heart!), and engaging in something, which will hopefully be fruitful is what needs to happen. Bring back the spirit of idealism and skepticism, which was certainly visible in the complex relationship of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

There is nothing comfortable about dialogue. It may end badly. It may end well. The point is that we have to start rejecting reductionism in arguments and personal attacks. You cannot prove your point by comparing people to candy, just as you cannot prove your point by waving an idiotic sign that says “I am a Muslim, do you trust me enough for a hug?”

What I have said is applicable to any issues. I just happen to pick one to illustrate my point. People are angry, frustrated, tired. But speaking in cliches won’t get us anywhere. It will just divide us even more.

Obama and Catholic Education

All of Barack Obama’s speeches which I have read and/or heard are vacuous.  I realize that every President has a speech writer – something I have never been able to wrap my mind around – and that the speech writer expresses what the President thinks but has trouble articulating.  It could very well be that Obama writes his own speeches or that he follows the tradition of speech writers.  Whatever the case, they have no substance.

In the last few days, the media has been full of commentary on Obama’s speech in Ireland.  The most loud criticism is that the President is calling for an end to Catholic education.  Naturally, there have been opposing view points, claiming that the President has said nothing of the sort. 

Obama spoke in Belfast Town Hall to a group of young people.  He said many things, which mostly involved self-congratulatory remarks and platitudes about unity and peace – statements that people put on their car bumpers.  The quote in question, which has caused much ruckus is this: “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division.  It discourages cooperation.”

This is not the only thing he said.  Obama spoke of “conflicts” around the world using globalized, one-size-fits-all statements, which have nothing to do with particularity of a war or conflict in each country.  He lauded these other nameless people for the fact that they are “groping to find a way to discover how to move beyond the heavy hand of history, to put aside the violence.”

I would like to point out some problems in Obama’s speech, particularly seen in these above statements. 

First, the question: did Obama call for an end of Catholic education or are people just overreacting?  On the surface, of course, Obama does not say that.  However, the genius of it – if one can call it that – is precisely the fact that Obama uses indirect language.  He has been consistently anti-Catholic, and given that pattern, Catholics not only have a right to voice a protest against his statements but also an obligation to do so.

In that one statement – “if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs” – Obama has said that neither Catholic nor Protestant education matters.  If a Catholic school does not have its own building, then where are the students supposed to go to get Catholic education?  Not only has he insulted and nullified Catholicism, he has nullified religion itself.  In one indirect statement, Obama is arguing that morality and education only comes from an organization that is not religious. 

Second issue involves Obama’s sheer arrogance in speaking to people about unity and peace.  These words (and others, like love) have been butchered and ground and made into euphemistic sausages by the milquetoast and mediocre minds.  Obama uses them as platitudes.  I am surprised that his speeches don’t have a slideshow of sunsets and sunrises and flowers and dolphins.

Being a Bosnian and a war survivor, it struck more than a chord with me when I read that it is necessary to move beyond the heaviness of past.  In other words, let it go.  Letting go is very different from forgiveness.  “Past is never dead.  It’s not even past,” as Faulkner said.  And more than anything, it is our responsibility to remember.  When extreme violence occurs and ends with the inevitable body count, the survivors have to choose how to remember, not whether they should remember.

I truly believe in dialogue, and in interconnectedness among different peoples, cultures, and religions.  But unity?  If it ever happens, it will be difficult.  As it should be.  The unity, which Obama moralistically argues for is sameness, which renders everyone mediocre.  If both Catholics and Protestants have one school building to go to, then they can all learn some watered down versions of history.  They will have no roots, no Tradition to guide them, and hence, no personal identity.  Obama’s idea of unity erases the question “who am I?” on both historical and metaphysical planes. 

The difference or alterity is necessary for the persistence of the human family.  Unity has to be understood in relation to the necessity of alterity and in the acknowledgement of unity’s own inherent difficulty.  Writing in Jerusalem, or on Religious Power and Judaism, Moses Mendelssohn states: “For the sake of your felicity and ours, a union of faiths is not tolerance; it is diametrically opposed to true tolerance!” 

If such unity is encouraged, future generations will lose their sense of selfhood because they will not have the context of the past to ask questions about the present or the future.  What is the point of trying to understand each other if what we should aim for is the annihilation of differences?  Alterity is an authentic diversity.

Illuminative Links: Be Careful With That Plum Brandy

Another post on my film blog, and another commentary on Dusan Makavejev's 1981 film Montenegro, or Pigs and Pearls. 
Film can also be viewed on Hulu, for free. Enjoy!

Being Oblonsky

There is this wonderful passage (what passage isn't really?) in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, which describes Oblonsky's political views, leanings, and habits. 

"Oblonsky subscribed to and read a Liberal paper--not an extreme Liberal paper but one that expressed the opinions of the majority.  And although neither science, art, nor politics specially interested him, he firmly held to the opinions of the majority and of his paper on those subjects, changing his views when the majority changed theirs,--or rather, not changing them--they changed imperceptibly of their own accord. Oblonsky's tendency and opinions were not his by deliberate choice: they came of themselves...he was obliged to hold views, just as he was obliged to have a hat...if he had a reason for preferring Liberalism to the Conservatism of many in his set, it was not that he considered Liberalism more reasonable, but because it suited his manner of life better...thus Liberalism became habitual to Oblonsky, and he loved his paper as he loved his after-dinner cigar, for the slight mistiness it produced in his brain..." (Anna Karenina, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970, p. 6).

I could not help but think of American politics, that is, current American popular politics--the stuff we see every day, the stuff we are exposed to whether we want to see it or not.  Let us perhaps even forget whether we are dealing with Liberalism or Conservatism, and what this meant for Tolstoy's time.  I think the passage transcends temporal concerns.

How much of our views, especially political views, are based on whether it suits us at that particular moment?  A solid philosophical principle should always challenge us, make us think, and make us extend our being into the world that is beyond comfort.  Both Liberal and Conservative politics (that is, what they have devolved into) are about comfort.  We may claim that they are not, we may claim that we are fighting for something, but in most instances, we want to preserve what we already have.  

So, for instance--a Liberal view which reflects the following: a right to have an abortion.  Usually, this is associated with the Liberal view, although I would say, libertarians argue for it as well from the perspective of freedom and liberty.  So, let us agree that one has a "right" to get an abortion, if one chooses.  Let us agree that there should be clinics, which provide such a service.  The issue is not that one should have the freedom to do such a thing; the issue is that a person, who subscribes to such a view wants to make an abortion a virtue.  It is good to have an abortion.  A person, who holds such a view applies virtuous actions of courage and bravery to the woman's ontological make up--a woman is brave for having an abortion.  Well, it's not that easy.  There are consequences for this "brave" act--regret, the looming cloud of "what if?"  If this indeed was a brave act, a good act, a person would not be experiencing, later in life, regret and sadness.  

Another instance--a Conservative view which reflects the following: capitalism is the greatest economic system.  Yes, free market must exist, but just like socialism, which is overtly tyrannical and dictatorial, capitalism can become a silent tyranny, where only one company dominates the market.  Nothing free about that.  A person, who holds such a view usually has a lot of money, spends it on "stuff" which distracts from the spiritual growth of their personhood.  If left unchecked, the person who holds such a view will develop the love of money and I think everyone will agree that love of money is not a good path of life.  And again, my issue is not with the free market or with individual need to consume, consume, consume.  My issue is that this is made into a virtue.  Recall Irving Kristol's book, Two Cheers for Capitalism, which asserts the importance of economic freedom and the improvement of people's living conditions (a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of needs).  But Kristol also says that it creates great spiritual malaise, a condition which does not allow for an evaluation of existential human needs--in other words, the center of human desires and passions.

So, what would that mean then, if both Person L and Person C (let us call them that) that I have described above stopped viewing such actions as virtue?  They would be forced to look into their hearts and contemplate what is really important in life.  Indeed, how much of our Liberal or Conservative claims rest purely on heuristics, on something we are used to, and much worse--on something, which suits our vices?  Of course, this is not true in every instance, and I shouldn't have to even qualify such a statement.  But you get the point.

Both views, in this case, want to preserve, conserve.  A current trend in Liberalism may say that they want change, but I am not so sure about that.  Preservation of atheistic hedonism (I think I am borrowing a phrase from Leo Strauss' commentary on Hobbes) is the main tenet of Liberalism, and the Liberal ideology is caught in a self-denying paradox, since it is using a principle of Conservatism in order to promote a Liberal ideology.

I sense a need to escape.  What are we to escape?  Certainly not reality.  We must clearly see what is in front of us, without a shred of sentimentality.  In order to do that, we must reject and escape the tyranny of slogans, be they Liberal or Conservative.  Forget the strength in numbers.  One has to be willing to stand alone, and be willing to be incredibly rejected, maybe even laughed at.  But what do you have to lose?  What are you living for?  How do you really want to spend your time on Earth since you've been given this glorious gift of life?

An Emotional Vote

I wonder: what has made people choose Barack Obama in 2008?  Actually, I am not interested in his policies at the moment.  What I find odd and fascinating at the same time, is the emotional aspect of people who chose to vote for Obama.  And so, I am interested in the psychology of the masses and the way Obama supporters interacted with Obama and/or the image of Obama.

Yesterday, I watched some old footage, which among others, included Obama’s acceptance speech in Chicago.  I am sure that everyone can recall it: people crying, swooning, fainting, screaming.  It was a cross between Beatlemania and Pentecostal church gathering. 

Let me also recall the celebrity video of “I pledge” in which various actors and performers—the Hollywood elite—said things like “I pledge to be a servant to the President.”

This is what’s so intriguing to me.  My question is what is the impetus, which makes a person behave in such a way?  And what has been happening historically with America (as well as the rest of the world) to warrant such a reaction?

I should warn the reader that I most likely will not have a clear cut answer to these questions.  But I think it is worth exploring. 

Let us begin with somewhat simple stuff: the Bush Presidency.  It was obvious that people have gotten tired of Bush, the war in Iraq, the whole “weapons of mass destruction” thing.  Somehow, they have felt drained (perhaps spiritually?) by Bush’s policies, or the way they have interpreted Bush’s policies.  Or, the other option was that Bush could have been any Republican president and liberal voters would still be angry.  So, were they angry about something entirely different, and Bush was just a small part of the unleashing of anger?  Anything’s possible.

Given the fact that the liberal voters were exhausted by Bush, it only seemed perfectly plausible that they would want something new, something shiny, something, which will bring light into their lives.  Here, we reach another (more complex) issue: placing all of one’s trust in a leader of one’s nation. 

Obama has promised many things, and in many ways, I cannot even say that I fully fault Obama (although his level of arrogance, wherever it may have originated, is undeniable).  Rather, I wonder what would possess an individual to become certain that one man can save the entire nation?  And more importantly, save the nation from what?

Is it laziness and the need for someone else to make decisions for me?  Is it incapability of seeing the reality of the world—in other words, that the world is primarily made of “vale of tears” rather than soft, bourgeois pseudo-justice?  Was it the fact that liberal bourgeoisie, for quite some time, have been detesting their own origins and have been craving the otherness?  Obama provided this “otherness.” 

But I do think that even a definition of otherness has been misunderstood.  I fully support the idea of cosmopolitan society, as well as unity in diversity.  But this has been misunderstood.  We are all “other than ourselves” to one another.  And so, Obama’s exoticism was like the best sugary confection that our bodies could desire.  Obama’s exoticism also absolved him of being of this world, being a human being, like the rest of us.  And being like the rest of us means having finitude, flaws, and a capability of doing harm.  The act of secular absolution elevated Obama to a “Savior” status.  Again, I ask, why think, to begin with, that one man can save us, whether he is a President or your next door neighbor?

One segment of the population, namely the white pseudo-intellectual elite, had gotten so comfortable in their lives.  In order to be free, they masochistically seek someone to whip them (metaphorically of course) in order to feel the pain of the less fortunate.  Whipping yourself in an effort to feel closer to the unfortunate and the poor will not help.  It will only whip you into submission.  And the less fortunate and the ordinary and the poor really don’t give a hoot about your compassion.

The idea of dictatorship has long left our vocabulary and most of all, our consciousness.  We are post that thing, which only existed in fascism.  There is no Big Brother, etc, etc.  I go back to the statement: “I pledge to be a servant to the President.”  This is a willing submission to the dictatorship.  Essentially, with this statement, one has effectively erased any possibility for the existence of the Divine Creator, as well as willingly submitted to the whims of another man.  They have created a Master-Slave relationship.  The confounding fact for me is that people like that did not find anything wrong with that.  The statement also reminds me of when I pledged an oath as a first grader to Comrade Tito. 

Being free is actually tough.  Once you accept that you are free, then you have to affirm the reality of our society, namely that we can be pretty nasty, brutal and evil to each other.  But being free also means affirming ideals, which take us out of the slime of evil and give us a possibility of being.

Being free also means that you have to stand alone, that is, you have a voice, uniquely yours.  All good, right?  Sure.  But here’s another difficulty of freedom, perhaps the largest and most complex—once you have accepted the uniqueness of your voice, then be prepared to accept that you might be rejected, and that in this rejection (which might evolve into hatred) you still have to persevere in the uniqueness of your voice. 

The voice of the people is not only one voice and it is not the voice of sameness.  It is each individual bringing something of himself to the community.  But bringing something willingly.  For example, I grew up in a family where being hospitable to others (including strangers) and being generous was simply part of the Bosnian culture.  It still is.  However, it was of your willingness that you chose to share, not because someone imposed it on you. Besides, the impetus to share and to be charitable has always been the path provided and urged by religion or a moral code, but not by the State. 

We are always called to think and evaluate and be careful not to make decisions purely based on emotion.  I think that a vote for Obama was an emotional vote.  As the Knight said to Indiana Jones, “choose wisely.”

Democritizing Talents

Retreat.  Retreat.  Retreat.  Be less.  Become less.  Become nothing, or at least become lower than you truly are.

You don’t need to be in an explicitly totalitarian system in order to receive this message.  Collectivist thoughts spoken out loud with an aim of extinguishing individuality can be found anywhere.  They just happen to become more pronounced when collectivism turns into an outward political system, with an effort to maintain control over people.

I learned how to read and write when I was three or four years old.  With a little help from my father, I would open up my picture books and copy letters and words that I saw, over and over again, until I got better at it.  I have always loved to read and so I continued.  Book after book.  I read my first Dostoyevsky when I was ten years old.  I also began to teach myself English by simply watching television.  I began to pick up other languages too, comparing their structure and similarities in grammar and expression.  I didn’t do this to impress anyone, or with an expectation that I will get something in return.  I simply did it because I enjoyed it. 

There was and is always something autodidactic about how I have approached learning for myself.  There were a few teachers (not that many to be honest with you) that I can think of that have contributed to my learning process, but on the whole, when I wanted to learn something, I sought the best ways to learn it and I did.  I followed the threads in history and literature if I wanted to see the continuity of an idea, and this early practice made my current efforts at research quite easy. 

Teaching yourself also can be daunting.  Sometimes you fail.  Sometimes you think that you are ready to read something, some text which has eluded you for quite some time, and you pick it up, and you realize that you need to leave it alone and perhaps come back to it later.  But teaching yourself can also mean that you are gaining discipline in your daily activities and that you are not waiting for anyone else to make a schedule for you. 

As it was to be expected, my hard work of learning often times went either unrecognized or worse—it was frowned upon.  I am not about to make a victim out of myself and have a pity party but being scolded for knowing a lot is to say the least, unpleasant.  Implicitly (or perhaps even explicitly), you are told to decrease yourself in order for someone else to increase.  The degrees of decrease and increase I am speaking of are only to do with intellectual abilitites.

Why such efforts at totalizing the other person’s gifts even exist?  Making everyone the same in talents is the worst kind of “equality.”  Gifts which have been given to us, gifts which can express themselves in art, or writing, or any other effort of the intellect are not democratic.  Art is not democratic. 

I don’t believe in hoarding of knowledge.  If I learn something, then it seems to me that the most logical thing to do is to share it with others.  But to make myself less than I am so someone else can feel better about themselves, so that they can increase their self-esteem (whatever the heck that is!), I refuse to bend.  I refuse to be totalized into a mediocre blob.

We are all strong and weak in one area or the other.  When I am weak, I would like to be helped, lifted by the strong.  When I am strong, then I will offer my hand to someone who is having moments of difficulties.  This is only logical.  But we cannot impose a tyranny of mediocrity.  Mediocrity breeds sameness and sameness extinguishes passion for life.  A little bit of competition is good for the mind.  If we are challenged, we are pushed to the area of our being that we would otherwise not discover. 

Having knowledge, of course, has nothing to do with being good.  And so, whatever our intellectual strengths are (which should be cultivated), we have to be careful not to become a Nietzschean “Superman,” who is above the law and deems himself morally superior to others because of this accumulation of knowledge. 

It’s funny when you go through your memories, whether past or somewhat recent ones, and you realize how many times you were called “too ambitious,” or “too passionate,” or “too intense” and that you need to “tone it down.”  Yeah, well, thanks for the tip, folks, but I think I’m going to go about this my way.

What Would Saul Alinsky Do?, or How to Rule With Fear

Saul Alinsky, 1909-1972

The name Saul Alinsky was known in the past but it has gained a prominence in the public sphere thanks to President Obama.  At the beginning of Obama’s first campaign, commentators (mainly of conservative persuasion) have often wondered “who is Barack Obama?”  I would venture a guess that liberal counterparts have asked the same question but in an effort of “sticking with the group,” and defeating Republicans, they have remained silent. 

Where does Obama come from (metaphysically, that is)?  Who are his influences?  An answer to the second question, it would appear, is Saul Alinsky.  And so, in order to make any progress in trying to understand Obama, it stands to reason to first explore Alinsky’s thought.

I will admit that this exploration has been attempted before.  Many conservative commentators have “ripped apart” Alinsky, especially by the claim that Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer.  I most certainly believed it, and have dismissed Alinsky rather aggressively.  But, since my own intellectual integrity does not allow me to make conclusions on anything until I have a fair amount of evidence, I resolved to read Rules for Radicals.  (And by the way, the book is dedicated to his wife Irene.  The book itself contains an epigraph—a quote by Alinsky himself, calling Lucifer the very first radical).

At this point, I am not interested in Saul Alinsky’s personal life.  I will only be dealing with his book.  I was intrigued and curious what kind of philosophy Alinsky espouses, especially after I have learnt that famous French Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain had great admiration for Alinsky.  The two became close friends, and Maritain thanks Alinsky explicitly in one of his own books, Reflections on America.  Was Maritain duped by Alinsky or is there more to this man?  But, the unlikely friendship between Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky is a topic for another article.

Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals was published in 1971.*  Stylistically, it is a very dull book.  In the past two days of reading it, I really had to brace myself and remain patient (I found myself making some kind of exhaling noises, along with bouncing my leg, which is not what I generally do). 

It is also a repetitive book—Alinsky could have easily said everything in fifty pages (maybe even less), as opposed to 196 pages.  Philosophically, it is weak, and nihilistic.  And there is also a pervasive cynicism, which is usually typical of most manifestos.

This particular manifesto begins by stating clearly what the objective is: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.  The Prince  was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power.  Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away” (3).

This opening paragraph perfectly sums up Alinsky’s philosophy.  He recognizes one particular reality of society—the hunger for power—and bases his “rules” on such a reality.  I do not deny that man is fallible and that he wants to maintain power, whether in his ontology, economically, politically or in family dynamics.  But the weakness of Alinsky’s arguments (if one can call them such) lies in the fact that there is nothing beyond the appetite for power.  We may be fallen creatures, we may be selfish, but recognizing such potentials for humanity does not mean that we are not called to a higher moral plane.

Immediate issue with the power struggle between Haves and Have-Nots is that the moment Have-Nots take away the power from Haves, then they (Have-Nots) become the possessors of power, and it follows that there will be another group of Have-Nots who will target the previous Have-Nots, who have now, thanks to the usurpation of the power from the Haves, have become the new Haves.  It is quite exhausting.  The cycle of power continues.  But Alinsky, implicitly, sees nothing wrong with this. 

In his pessimism and cynicism (although he wants to be known for his optimism), he is similar to Hobbes.  But the stylistic similarity stops there.  Alinsky is not a precise thinker, nor does he claim to be.

Another component of Alinsky’s Rules is the complete rejection of dogma, and any type of past wisdom(s) that we have been given by philosophers, thinkers, leaders, etc.  As he writes: “The fear of change is, as discussed earlier, one of our deepest fears, and a new idea must be at the least couched in the language of the past ideas; often, it must be, at first, diluted with vestiges of the past” (108). 

At the heart of his musings is an image of a pragmatic organizer, who never sleeps, who is perpetually impatient, who demands fast action, who is always on call, and who is fully dedicated to change and agitation of the political structure.  At some point, Alinsky even advises celibacy in order for an organizer to devote himself fully to the cause at hand.

Alinsky does have an ethical system but his ethics are purely situational and relativist.  The moral codes change from one age to another, from one situation to another.  In other words, there is no such thing as universal principles.  In fact, a perfect organizer is someone who “detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality, rebels against any repression of free, open search for ideas no matter where they may lead.  He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting.  He stirs unrest” (73).

In this statement, Alinsky assumes that any universal principle lacks truth and freedom, and implies that such a principle is tyranny itself.  An organizer, given the description above, is not a pleasant person.  He is joyless, woefully lacking in a sense of humor, and most of all, a denier of an other’s inherent freedom.  An organizer decides what issues should be important to you as the victim of an injustice.  The organizer decides what the meaning of justice and injustice is.  And ironically, in an attempt to fight the tyranny of the Haves and the corrupt, inhumane political system, the organizer becomes the tyrant himself.

Along with the agitation, an organizer is a master at polarization, what Alinsky qualifies as “a well-integrated political schizoid.”  He writes: “The organizer must become schizoid, politically, in order not to slip into becoming a true believer.  Before men can act an issue must be polarized.  Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil.  He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree” (78).

Alinsky obviously accepts manipulation and dishonesty as an integral characteristic of an organizer.  He has no qualms about such moral corruption and inauthenticity of an encounter between human beings.  The point is to not only treat human beings as masses (not as unique individuals) but also to disorient them.  A successful organizer spreads the lie that one cannot stand alone, and that one voice of truth is irrelevant, or even worse—a societal impossibility.

Another significant aspect of an organizer is an acceptance of ego.  Alinsky makes a distinction between ego and egotism, the latter relating to vanity.  However, upon closer examination, Alinsky’s conception of ego is no different from vanity: “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach—to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God (61).

It is interesting to note, that given the fact that all of society is based on the situational usurpations of power, Alinsky never once mentions what is the pay off that the organizer receives for inserting himself in different situations, which according to the organizer are deemed unjust. Is it the feeling of power?  If one “plays God,” does that not imply that one is interested in psychological reward of moral, intellectual, and even ontological superiority over the other? 

Even God gave us free will.  An organizer does not.

All this talk of justice in Rules for Radicals, and there is never any mention of being servants for one another.  Alinsky may speak of human dignity, however, there is no relationality, there is no dialogue.  An organizer manipulates the language and coerces his target into his own vision of a particular outcome.  An organizer, at its core, engages in the metaphysical takeover of the other.  The instant one lets another human being make decision for one, individual liberty is threatened.  An organizer depends on the quick, passing moment of weakness of the other in order to plant the seed of doubt of reality.  At its core, an organizer is Hobbesian in his pessimistic view of humanity (all is power based), Cartesian in his questioning of everything (universal doubt), and Rousseauian in the emotionalism (which is a way to appeal to the masses).

So, we do know what Alinsky thinks.  He has made it quite plain and obvious.  Do we know what President Obama thinks?  Do these descriptions of a community organizer according to Saul Alinsky apply to Barack Obama given his actions thus far as the President of United States?  You be the judge of that.  Make your own conclusions, arguments, counterarguments.  I have merely presented the evidence of Alinsky’s thought.

As for me, the answer to the question whether this describes Barack Obama, is a resounding yes.

 *All of the quotations and paginations from Rules for Radicals are to be found in this edition: New York: Random House, 1971.

An Uneasy Peace After the War

It is quite obvious that when you are in the midst of a war, you do not pay attention what the news agencies, foreign or even domestic, are reporting about it.  You are only trying to survive.  Occasionally, and only in recent years, I will look up articles or interviews that have covered the war in Bosnia.  For example, at the time of the war, The New York Times was pro-Serb, and has reported falsehoods.  And even now, there are people who deny that genocide in Bosnia ever happened, especially those who are waging a war against Islam.  And so, it follows, according to such logic that Muslims (in Bosnia) could not have been victims of war since there are (at this moment) radical, militant Muslims that are terrorizing the West.

I came across an interview with women (mainly American) who founded an organization called “Women’s Commission” that was meant to help the survivors after the end of the Bosnian war.  The commission, as it is obvious from its name, mainly focused on women and by association on children.  The interview aired on April 17, 1996 on the Charlie Rose Show.

The interview is not a current event or what you might consider “topical” or “relevant” in a temporal sense.  It is concerned with post-war efforts at reconstruction.  Bosnia has moved at a light speed, you might say, in the reconstruction of the country and its capital.  There was something else that struck me though, something which transcends time and journalistic relevancy—an inadequate and naïve conception of justice.

(As a side note, there was an excellent article in June/July issue of First Things titled “Peace After Genocide,” on the Hague War Tribunals and the liberal approach to justice.  I responded to it in a letter to the editor, which will be published in the next issue of the magazine).

But let me go back to the Charlie Rose interview.  The women in the interview are committed full force in bringing some relief to the women and children of Bosnia.  I do not find anything wrong with that.  But the rhetoric used and the implied action, which would follow can be characterized as highly unrealistic. 

Words like “healing,” finding “long-lasting peace after the war,” “forgiveness,” “fast reconstruction” (of the psyche, mind you) are just a few indicators of the naïve approach to justice.  They spoke of the fact that the war criminals need to be immediately singled out and brought to justice.  They spoke that the healing process needs to begin immediately.  They spoke that the women need to return to their homes, immediately.    

I do admire their verve and what I deem, a truly honest need to help.  I have no doubt in that.  But you know that whole “be wise as serpents and gentle as doves?”  Well, it’s the serpent part that is missing, and in this case, an integral part in achieving justice.

The only act that could have happened immediately is taking care of the basic human needs—food, clothes, shelter, and adequate access to water.  That is certainly all I could ask for when I lived in a refugee camp (and the camp I lived in for almost four years would be considered a “five star hotel” compared to some others which I saw and could have ended up.  Think of dead pigeons and fecal matter in the rooms I’ve seen, which you were meant to inhabit).

So, let me go back to the points the women in the interview made, and single out the pure impracticality of these suggestions. 

War criminals—an immediate justice.  Impossible.  The politics of former Yugoslavia seen through the entanglement of the relations with Russia, England and France are far too complicated in order capture the criminals and prosecute.  We know, by now, that the Hague Tribunal is nothing but a court of jesters.

Women and children returning to their homes, immediately following the Dayton agreement.  This is not true in all cases, but in most, homes in the villages have been destroyed, burned to the ground.  For example, the house I was born in, my grandparents’ house which was built most likely in the early 1800s is gone.  When I went back to Bosnia, all that was left were stone steps that led nowhere, and partial walls, covered by now, in weeds.

Immediate healing, forgiveness and naturally, a unity among people.  Healing?  People could not even process the events until years later.  It took years, for me, until the post-traumatic stress hit me, and I had no clue what was going on with my mind and body. 

All of these are fine goals, in and of themselves.  I do not know whether all of these women are liberals, and that is beside the point, however, they do exhibit a liberal approach to justice and forgiveness.  The utopia, which is created and that surrounds the choices is bound to fail.  Why?  Because it is trying to do too much in a short period of time.  Human spirit is resilient, and I can certainly attest that we, Bosnians, are resilient people indeed.  But to demand, through the use of funding no less, a recovery of the fragmented psyche is absurd.

Any peace after the war is uneasy.  Forgiveness is a slow process.  Fragmentation of the individual begins to dissipate at such snail speed that sometimes you feel like you will remain a prisoner of war forever; that you will never free yourself.  A naïve approach to justice and forgiveness forgets the reality that a human being, who has endured war is, in many ways, forever stained by evil.  The darkness is within you, and the tension between emptiness and hope is your constant companion.  And so, you wake up every day, you try to choose the “yes” of life, and you fill the day with works of love, and not of hate.

I know that some people want to hear that there is a defining moment in a survivor’s life when he/she finally sheds the burden of war and trauma associated with it.  But these moments only happen in Hollywood movies or on the way to Disneyland.  Such reality does not exist.  What does exist is faith that even if earthly justice does not happen, God will in the end judge.  And the tension of being human continues, in the everlasting dialogue between the fragmentation and redemption.

Obama the Evader

According to the Wikipedia article, the phenomenon of political correctness may have its origins as far as 1793.  Political correctness of 1793 may have been used in a different sense altogether, so I find this to be a shaky reference into the history of political correctness.

As we move past 1793, the chronical jump takes us to 1970s.  I suppose, then, that nobody utilized the process of political correctness between 1793 and 1970.  I exaggerate, of course. 

“Political correctness” as a string of two words has come to mean something like a “euphemistic use of language,” “gender, race, religion, age, disability inclusivity.”  The list may be growing even as I write this.  Linguistically, this is odd—these two words should rather denote a way of doing politics.  Politics done logically, let’s say.

Including and since the 1970s, political correctness has taken different forms, given the inevitable passing of time and needs of the people.  But, what remains at its core are two things: first is the change in state and/or federal law as connected to usage of language and different groups representing linguistic usage, and the second is existential awkwardness. 

The appetite for constant changing of the law to suit the fickle needs of different groups of people has to do with identity politics.  Those who subscribe to it are bound to an extreme form of particularism.  Particularism, which (paradoxically) leads to an exclusivity and a separation from the rest of the humanity.  In an attempt to be inclusive, the proponents of identity politics actually end up practicing a form of “identity monarchy.” 

In truth, the objective is not inclusivity but a possession of superiority of one voice over the other, regardless of the fact whether the truth is contained in the voice.  Remember Associate Justice Sotomayor’s comment, which put particularism—in this case, cultural and racial—above objectivity.

The exploration of one’s identity as a member of a particular group should not be frowned upon.  But such exploration should enhance person’s ontological make up.  It should not begin or devolve into a craving for political struggle, a craving, which according to the leftist principles will never be satisfied.  The fact whether one group of people is experiencing oppression by another group of people has to be evaluated objectively, and this takes an existential approach to political realities.  In other words, to know identity, one must get into the essence of what makes that particular identity.  The essence of an identity is what connects the universalism of humanity to the particularism of an individual.

Which leads me into my second point—existential awkwardness. 

A few days ago, President Obama spoke at an event in Cincinnati, Ohio.  During the question and answer period, he imposed a rule, “insisting he would only take questions from a female and then a male, and not two in a row from people of the same gender” (Terrence Jeffrey, CNS News, July 16,2012).  The White House transcript of that speech (including the Q&A session) reveals this awkwardness.  It is one thing for a President to be slightly rhetorically challenged (to use a kind of inclusive inspired language); nobody’s perfect.  But this is not the case with Obama.  His rhetorical clumsiness is directly linked to his existential ungainliness. 

Because Obama’s modus vivendi is directly linked to his hunger for power, his relation to the people is that of paternalism (see video for further reference).  While pressing on inclusivity (“girl-boy, girl-boy, girl-girl, boy-girl”—are you getting tired just as I am?  Sounds like some 80s pop tune), Obama in effect exercises tyranny over what constitutes gender and language.

Obama is a great evader.  The linguistic and gender inclusivity are means through which a political strategy of obliqueness side tracks the people from the questions at hand.  I have always wondered whether this is because he is incapable of spontaneity or because he is cunningly and purposely stilted.

The acceptance of identity politics revels in pointing to itself.  Continuously.  When, at the Ohio event, Obama said “I’m gonna make sure that women get equal time with men,” the reaction of this section of the American people was far more revealing than Obama’s words.  They cheered, applauded—the appeals to ego and to the specificity of gender stroke the delicate thin skin of the women involved.  The implication being “it all about me.”

Although, I am not a Christian, I cannot help but think of Byzantine icons, in which Mary always points to Christ.  Not to herself.  I am not implying that we can all reach the heights of Mary’s submission to the will of God, but shouldn’t we at least try?

The Closing of the Conservative Mind

What is conservative these days?  For that matter, what is liberal?  In the next few paragraphs, I will mainly concern myself with what do we mean when we say “conservative.” This might prove to be a difficult task but it’s worth a go—at least, I can get some ideas and questions onto the paper, testing them, re-testing, hopefully leading us to some conclusions.

I am very much interested in politics.  But politics and political philosophy are quite different from one another.   I used to be a confused wanderer through the current trends in political discussion, fervently (and paradoxically, weakly) trying to find meaning in today’s media discussions.  Instead (and I am not stating anything new here), I was nauseated by shouting, lack of intellectual rigor, lack of carefully composed thought, and poor and illogical conclusions to already poor and illogical arguments.  So, I realized, one must distinguish between a political party conservatism and political philosophy conservatism.  I do not know whether this distinction has always been on the horizon in American public political sphere (I do not want to be one of those people who claims that “we live in such strange times”—we have always faced something “strange” and most likely, always will).  Nevertheless, I find—as someone who lives today, as someone who is faced with today’s issues, today’s political assaults of the external world—a need to make a distinction between party politics (almost always intertwined with any choice of media) and political philosophy.

In his essay, On Being Conservative (1956), Michael Oakeshott defined conservatism as a disposition.  He writes: “My theme is not a creed or a doctrine, but a disposition.  To be conservative is to be disposed to think and behave in certain manners; it is to prefer certain kinds of conduct and certain conditions of human circumstances to others; it is to be disposed to make certain kinds of choices.”

Oakeshott bases his idea of conservatism (although, I am not too sure he would write –ism, for, surely, that is the point of his essay) on what reality is.  He continues: “To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”

I must admit that after I read this, I immediately chose not to be conservative.  What kind of behavior is this, I thought?  This is far too constricting, suffocating, and I heartily refuse it!  Isn’t change a good thing?  After all, we are constantly growing as human beings, that is, if our minds are open to it.  Ideally, we are not stuck on the same ideas, which eventually turn into repetitive slogans.  Isn’t it wonderful to be able to come up with new, better ways of thought, of life?  A conservative man sounds static, someone unwilling to be adventurous and free.  A conservative man is someone who is terrified of change. 

But one aspect of Oakeshott’s essay that stuck out was this notion of familiar and the unfamiliar.  What does this mean?  Do these notions imply a national isolationism, or even an isolationism within one’s own country (the east coast folks cannot understand the west coast folks, and vice versa type of mentality)?  If so, I thought, then I cannot call myself a conservative.  I have faced so many unfamiliar situations in my life—from war to being a refugee to coming to America to…

Oakeshott continues on the exploration of familiarity: “Familiarity is the essence of tool using; and in so far as man is a tool using animal he is disposed to be conservative.”  There is something implicitly Aristotelian about this, fact based.  I found myself even more affirming the Platonist within me!

It sounded as if Oakeshott was against innovation and improvement.  My main disagreement was this: in order for something to have become familiar (and traditional) to us today, it had to have been started in a new form.  In other words, it would appear that change was necessary in order for this new form to emerge.  How does this explain the conservative rejection of change, which is the primary impetus for a “liberal” or a so-called “progressive?”

What if Oakeshott meant something entirely different when he wrote familiarity and unfamiliarity?  If his definition of being conservative is based on a disposition, then the reading of his theory has to drastically change.  Oakeshott’s view of conservatism has a metaphysical grounding.  This is why he calls it a “disposition” rather than a set of rules. 

His view depends upon a definition of reality.  In other words, one cannot have political philosophy (let alone politics!) without reality.  Our, human reality, is composed of external world, which we are part of.  The external world, something outside of us, has always been there.  And so, even when we create something, that something has been created out of another something.  God is the only one who creates out of nothing.  I believe that this is what Oakeshott means when he writes familiarity.  We are faced with familiarity whether we like it or not; we are faced with the external world.

Conservatism today is in utter shambles.  Lots of dialectical games, which are not even sophisticated or avant-garde enough to be called by such a name.  The way the conservatism exists today is not working and is utterly failing.  It is rapidly closing in on itself, pushing itself closer and closer to the edge of the abyss precisely because it has lost grasp on philosophy, namely metaphysics.  And so, I am not at all surprised that the only conservatism in existence right now is “party conservatism.” 

Is there a way to get out of it?  I am not about to propose anything, nor do I wish to.  Being a conservative has, at once a universal appeal but within that appeal, it also carries a certain level of paradox.  I see this in the tension between today’s embodiments of American conservatism and liberalism.  This tension will always exist.  A “good liberal” is always in a search of something better, never satisfied, and it breeds an attitude of nothing ever being good enough.  A “good liberal” is also almost always interested in a continuing struggle.  And because of this push, a liberal or a so-called progressive, will always have the need to organize.  In fact, liberalism finds its meaning in organizing. 

By contrast, conservatism’s existence relies precisely on the fact that is does not participate in organizing.  If conservatism is based on a metaphysical reality, on a disposition, on the notion that man always creates something out of another something, then conservatism is not a movement.  And I would also add that the instant conservatism becomes a movement, it ceases to be conservatism.  That is part of the problem with today’s sad state of conservatism.

So, what can a conservative do if he wishes to fight the forces of liberalism?  As William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote: “Up where from liberalism?  There is no conservative political manifesto which, as we make our faltering way, we can consult, confident that it will point a sure finger in the direction of the good society.  Indeed, sometimes the conservative needle appears to be jumping about as on a disoriented compass.  My professional life is lived in an office battered by every pressure of contemporary conservatism.”  In so many words, this is what I have said above: that conservatism cannot become a movement, or a rule book, or else it will become something else.  And so, a conservative must be in order to do. 

I do not wish to “hearken back” on the great times of WFB.  As much as I love the man (and all my friends can attest to that), Buckley has lived in another time, faced different battles in society, and had his own dispositions, and let us also remember, he was finite.  And, no, let us also not go into the whole “who is the new Buckley” business.  There is no heir to WFB because there was no predecessor.  But the very fact that people are even asking such a question implies that they thirst for something, which elevates the human spirit.  Not a thing, which causes joylessness and oppression.  And a desire for a “new Buckley” in our public arena means that people want creativity, verve, and a sense of humor.

I have said elsewhere that although we are finite, we also have the capacity to move towards the Infinite.  This is inherent in our dignity and freedom.  As WFB writes: “Conservatism must insist that while the will of man is limited in what it can do, it can do enough to make over the face of the world; and that the question that must always be before us is, What shape should the world take, given modern realities [my italics]?”

The primary thing, which has attracted me to America was the notion of freedom.  When I read those words, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” I was overjoyed.  How can you not be, frankly?  Now, American politics are in a terrible and immediate need for restoration.  Restoration means that we are using “forms” which are already in place.  But even this restoration should be done in small steps.  A structure is not built on a few weak pieces, a few ideas that bring about over-night change.  It needs time.

Anti-intellectualism, provincialism, cosmopolitanism…what is “the soul of America?”

Thomas Nast cartoon, an intellectual and prizefighter, c.1875

A society functions on the basis of naming things.  We use language to express ourselves, however imperfect and inadequate it may seem.  Art, especially painting/sculpture and music, transcends the inevitable linguistic barrier.  But when we are dealing with one another, when we are encountering one another, on most occasions, we use language to communicate.  And so, we name things.    In Genesis 2:20, “the man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals.” 

Naming is important; it speaks to the uniqueness of our world and the creation.

Let me juxtapose the proper naming to empty labeling of humanity.  I don’t think that we are doing much “naming” these days: in other words, we are not open to life process, we are not actually encountering, judging, thinking, and making a decision.  Unfortunately, we fall into “political party” lines and we recite them creating populism and collectivism, which I really can’t stand.  I have an aversion when someone accepts all the precepts of a particular political system without giving it any thought, without dynamism of human mind.  And this relates to the matters of faith as well.  “A thousand questions do not equal one doubt,” said Cardinal Newman.  So, ask!  Think!  Judge!  Decide!

Falling into a particular party line, whether it’s conservative or liberal, externally, is what bothers me the most.  Let me clarify this.  If you are a “liberal,” then you must dress like a hippie, or an academic, and drive a Volvo, Subaru or VW.  If you are a “conservative,” then you have to like country music, proclaim how ‘merica’s the best country in the world, and you also have to like hunting.  If you’re a “liberal,” then you will constantly criticize your government (that is, Republican government) and will want progress at all costs, without really knowing what this progress is, you will be “open-minded” to other cultures as well, and you’re bumper sticker will say “coexist.”  If you’re a “conservative,” then you will hate those Muslims because they should all perish. They are all the same, and Islam needs to become extinct.

Pretty joyless picture of what it means to be a “liberal” and “conservative” these days, if you ask me.  All of these externals have nothing to do with who you are, in your interiority, in your soul. 

Who has decided that an affiliation to a political party is a deciding factor how you live your life day to day?  That is, who decided that if you like country music, then you are a “conservative” and that if you are interested in other cultures, or you have respect for other cultures, then you are a “liberal?”  This is so silly. 

I have been particularly disappointed with conservatives (although I do like Mitt), who are speaking in sound-bytes, and the news media certainly will ensure that it will remain that way as well.  Does anyone think?  Is anyone present to the reality of the world?  Or put another way, is anyone living in the present moment?

And dialogue?  Ha!  Dream on!  Both conservatives and liberals are too proud and too stubborn to admit that they actually might agree on some aspects in how America should be run.  If I mention the word dialogue or justice or the importance of art expression in our lives, I will be pronounced a “lefty.”  So be it, then.  Then, I am a “lefty.”  And if I speak of tradition and ethical values, then I will be pronounced an arch-conservative, the backward looking person.  So be it, then.  Then, I am an arch-conservative.

I think that we are dealing with here is not so much a difference between a liberal and conservative but with a difference between cosmopolitanism and provincialism.  The question is what is America?  Is America an anti-intellectual nation?  The real “class warfare” in America has nothing to do with economics (although it does play a part).  It is between intellectuals and the “people.” 

Intellectuals have not been exactly a welcoming bunch.  Let’s face it: they talk a lot, they spin theories, they are the elite and the hoi polloi is somewhere down there.  The masses distrust the ways of the intellect.  Just do it!  Don’t think!  Don’t ask too many questions.  The masses don’t need all that fancy talk (remember when Sarah Palin called Charles Krauthammer “hoity-toity?”  And all Krauthammer did and ever does is express himself in the most logical and intelligent manner).

I think that intellectuals have been smeared.  Or rather, those who call themselves “intellectuals,” the elite, are really ideologues and semantic theorists.  Academics certainly fall into that category.  These ideologues make discourse impossible, they confuse the reality of the world with unreal theories, and are not willing to see life from an other’s perspective.  As a result, those of us, who love learning, in other words, who have love of wisdom and praise imagination, are dismissed.  This would certainly be an instance of anti-intellectualism.

We are experiencing a strong level of division, of political polarization and both “liberals” and “conservatives” are guilty of it.  If we’re going to have a dialogue, then we have to begin to listen, first.  And certainly stop ad hominem attacks.  I don’t think we need more polarization.  I am certainly getting tired of it. 

I guess, in many ways, I have come to the personal conclusion, that I don’t give a damn what anyone calls me, what anyone labels me.  I am committed to truth, and I am a servant of truth.  That is all that matters to me.  And I have no problem pointing out the tyranny of ideology wherever it might find itself at home.