"Of all enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded,
because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. . . .
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, 1795
Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, the current neocon high priest at the Weekly Standard, is generally regarded as the father of neoconservatism, which has a lot in common with American progressivism and other collectivist isms. The bottom line for neocons is that a large government isn't necessarily bad, that it can be good used to mold the world to their standards, and that since an expanding state is "inevitable," it might as well be used for remaking the world in America's image.
There are just all kinds of inconsistencies there, not the least of which is that neocon doctrine runs counter to the basic ideas of individual liberty and limited government that form the basis, to this day, for American culture. But, perhaps not so strangely, the neoncon message is very much similar to the ideas of Franklin Roosevelt and very close to other authoritarian political doctrines that we thought had passed from us with the end of the 20th century.
At home, the neocons have pushed for federalization of education, the most recent example Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, and for a dramatic expansion of executive power, much like FDR's attempts to expand executive power after he came to office. The neocons have applauded the attempts to shred the Bill of Rights and have jumped up and down and yelled themselves silly that all the outrages of the administration against the Constitution are justified in the war on terror.
Ben Franklin once said that a people willing to give up liberty for security in the end give up both. The neocons have nothing to do with the hearts and minds of Franklin, Madison, Adams and the other founders. The latter would find them, indeed almost all our current crop of political leaders, repugnant.
Abroad, the neocons were the drumbeaters for the Iraq War, part of their larger strategy, developed well before 9/11, for an American "virtual" empire or worldwide hegemony. Think Pax Romana renamed Pax Americana except that neither deserve the Pax part.
Imperialism is foreign to the original and continuing basic cultural impulse of people in America, which is "Please leave me alone and I'll do the same for you and yours." That impulse also runs contrary to what we must now call the progressive-neocon agenda to manage and direct individuals within a greater "national purpose." It is interesting that we hear very similar rhetoric supporting these notions both from Hillary Clinton, supposedly a leftist, and Rudy Giuliani, supposedly a rightist, and the other candidates for high office.
The truth is that all of the presidential candidates, except Ron Paul, can safely be called neocons, even those who propose vastly expanded social programs and higher taxes.
It's all cut from one very old, very dirty cloth, slightly purplish in color. That's the same one that Julius and August Caesar wrapped themselves in while setting up a dictatorship, the same one that Napoleon waved while destroying liberty and along with half of Europe, the same one that 20th century autocrats pulled from the trash bins of history to wear once again and once again soak with blood.
At home, America's basic original cultural impulse calls for a tiny federal government that doesn't dictate how we conduct our daily lives, insofar as we respect the same rights of others. Abroad, that means a tiny federal government that doesn't try to police every troublespot on the globe and that is truly limited to defending Americans.
The Iraq War was neocon imperialist adventurism at its most naked and egregious. It was not good for Iraqis, not good for Americans, and not good for anyone else. And, by the way, the Iraqis, most of whom are Shia, already did not like al-Qaeda, most of whom are fanatic Sunnis. The Kurds already did not like al-Qaeda, since the Kurds are moderate Sunnis.
And recent relevations show that the Bush administration had enough reason to seriously doubt intelligence about Saddam's WMD to refrain from going to war, just on a practical basis, forgetting the ethical and moral issue of launching wars anytime you feel the least bit threatened by something.
The neocons are the latest manifestation of those who worship the state and turn government and politics into a kind of civic religion. Every few years, a new "savior" is sought from among the crowd of sinners found on Capitol Hill and the various statehouses, and is crowned president after a cynical ritual of elections which present no real choice to the voters. The eventual winner does not have the consent of even a majority of adults; the running dogs chosen for Congress are much more representative of a Darwinian throng of special interest groups than of ordinary individual Americans.
The neocons, like their ideological cousins the progressivists on the left, are caught in the delusions of anger and animality and, in a compassionate and rational society, will have no future as leaders.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Clinton hard to accept as philanthropy cheerleader
Word is that Bill Clinton's book Giving is not doing well. Some 750,000 copies were printed, but after a first week's sales of 50,000 orders have dropped off. Wonder why?
While there's no data to establish the reason, I suspect it's because Clinton's entire involvement with philanthropy is as a cheerleader, not a significant donor. A book about philanthropy by Bill Gates would probably sell exceptionally well. Books by direct mail fundraising wizards such as the guru Mal Warwick sell well.
It's hard to accept Clinton even as a cheerleader for voluntary wealth redistribution, after a career in politics where he redistributed money taken involuntarily through taxes to special interests who helped keep him in office. (Not unlike most other politicians, who, like Clinton, would not do well as cheerleaders for philanthropy.)
If he's always thought philanthropy was a good idea, why wasn't he using the bully pulpit of the presidency to encourage it, rather than continuing various government-mandated schemes to redistribute wealth? But the reason for Clinton trying to suck publicity oxygen from philanthropy may be more prosaic.
Clinton's former political friend Al Gore has now staked out a position as leader of world environmentalism. (That's a position which will, I predict, become increasingly untenable as the current brouhaha about global warming proves in future years to be a tempest in a teapot.)
So, perhaps Bill is jealous of his former number 2 Al, who now has a prize that the Nobel committee will one day regret having bestowed. Thus, in a superb example of junior high school boy level competition, Bill is trying to carve out his own position as world's number one philanthropy booster.
Both efforts have the distinct flagrance of cynicism and self-aggrandizement, which is genetic to the political culture in which both Bill and Al have marinated for decades.
Where are the honest political leaders who understand the limits that government should abide by and the necessity for individual freedom, and who do not continue dressing up the failed collectivist nostrums of the 20th century in MTV-style 21st century pyscho-babble?
There are a few - such as Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who recently drew a distinct line between "ideological environmentalism" and "scientific ecology" in a speech at the Cato Institute. There is Ron Paul, the only libertarian to run for a major party nomination in many decades. And there are a few others.
And there are signs people are beginning to listen. After all, sales of Giving have nosedived, almost counterintuitively, if one believes the media hype that a signficant number of Americans just can't wait to send the Clintons back to the White House. Not a few people, when polled, express complete exasperation with the current crop of presidential candidates. And also quite a few have noticed that after a year in control of Congress, the Democrats have not delivered on their main promise from 2006, ending the Iraq War.
And both Generation X and Y, now becoming more politically active, have a strong aversion to BS, much stronger, I am sad to say, than my own Baby Boomer generation. At some point, a majority of these two generations will fully realize how bad the BS really is, and there will be deep cultural and political change, not toward more collectivism but toward decentralization and freedom.
That's a prediction Bill, Al, Hillary, Fred, Rudy and the others don't want to know about.
While there's no data to establish the reason, I suspect it's because Clinton's entire involvement with philanthropy is as a cheerleader, not a significant donor. A book about philanthropy by Bill Gates would probably sell exceptionally well. Books by direct mail fundraising wizards such as the guru Mal Warwick sell well.
It's hard to accept Clinton even as a cheerleader for voluntary wealth redistribution, after a career in politics where he redistributed money taken involuntarily through taxes to special interests who helped keep him in office. (Not unlike most other politicians, who, like Clinton, would not do well as cheerleaders for philanthropy.)
If he's always thought philanthropy was a good idea, why wasn't he using the bully pulpit of the presidency to encourage it, rather than continuing various government-mandated schemes to redistribute wealth? But the reason for Clinton trying to suck publicity oxygen from philanthropy may be more prosaic.
Clinton's former political friend Al Gore has now staked out a position as leader of world environmentalism. (That's a position which will, I predict, become increasingly untenable as the current brouhaha about global warming proves in future years to be a tempest in a teapot.)
So, perhaps Bill is jealous of his former number 2 Al, who now has a prize that the Nobel committee will one day regret having bestowed. Thus, in a superb example of junior high school boy level competition, Bill is trying to carve out his own position as world's number one philanthropy booster.
Both efforts have the distinct flagrance of cynicism and self-aggrandizement, which is genetic to the political culture in which both Bill and Al have marinated for decades.
Where are the honest political leaders who understand the limits that government should abide by and the necessity for individual freedom, and who do not continue dressing up the failed collectivist nostrums of the 20th century in MTV-style 21st century pyscho-babble?
There are a few - such as Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who recently drew a distinct line between "ideological environmentalism" and "scientific ecology" in a speech at the Cato Institute. There is Ron Paul, the only libertarian to run for a major party nomination in many decades. And there are a few others.
And there are signs people are beginning to listen. After all, sales of Giving have nosedived, almost counterintuitively, if one believes the media hype that a signficant number of Americans just can't wait to send the Clintons back to the White House. Not a few people, when polled, express complete exasperation with the current crop of presidential candidates. And also quite a few have noticed that after a year in control of Congress, the Democrats have not delivered on their main promise from 2006, ending the Iraq War.
And both Generation X and Y, now becoming more politically active, have a strong aversion to BS, much stronger, I am sad to say, than my own Baby Boomer generation. At some point, a majority of these two generations will fully realize how bad the BS really is, and there will be deep cultural and political change, not toward more collectivism but toward decentralization and freedom.
That's a prediction Bill, Al, Hillary, Fred, Rudy and the others don't want to know about.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Political notes
Whew, a long time since the last post. I promise to be more prolific. Herewith some political notes.
(Warning Label: Sam considers active politics a legacy disorder from humanity's first 5000 years of recorded history. He hopes to help encourage the world to move toward a libertarian, limited republic system that will protect people from each other and also from politicians by not giving governments much power at all. Governments were not intended to be social service agencies, anymore than Pit Bulls were intended to be lap dogs.)
Don Siegelman
The former governor of Alabama was, according to an article in this week's Time magazine, more or less framed by prosecutors, who happened to be Republicans, and Siegelman happened to be a Democrat. Don got his start in politics as a staffer for the McGovern campaign in Alabama in 1972, and went on to be exec of the Alabama Democratic Party and hold various elected statewide offices, including governor from 1999 to 2003. He was barely defeated for re-election by Republican Bob Riley in 2002. Although Don's political ideas are nothing to write home about, from a libertarian perspective, he does not deserve, in Sam's opinion, to be sitting in a federal prison in Louisiana when there are a lot of real political crooks running free.
Ron Paul
Representative Paul continues to be the only authentic candidate in the presidential race, of either party, holding exactly the same libertarian positions he has held, and voted according to, since he first came to Congress from Texas several decades ago. (He is the only person in congressional history to win election three different times by defeating an incumbent.)
If Paul can manage to raise more money, get momentum going into January, and avoid Rottweiler interviewers like Bill O'Reilly, there is an outside chance he could be nominated or end up on the ticket with Giuliani, in which case the latter would probably adopt a lot of Paul's ideology. (Why? Because libertarian ideas are superior, of course.)
Fred Thompson
The former Senator and former television DA should return home to Tennessee as quickly as possible and help his wife raise their young daughter. Presumably he has plenty of money after several years on "Law & Order" and, being retirement age, will have plenty of time.
The Democrats
With the single exception of Bill Richardson, this is as discouraging a group of candidates as can be imagined. All want to expand government, decrease liberty, raise taxes and create a National Nanny State. None should be in public office, rather they should all be working at social service nonprofit organizations where they can satisfy their urges to do good and inflate their egos at a cost borne only by those willing to voluntarily contribute to said organizations.
The Other Republicans
Did Sam say that the Democrats are a discouraging group? Well, the other Republicans are equally discouraging, including the incredibly-flip-flopping Romney, the anti-First Amendment John McCain, etc. Mike Huckabee seems like a nice enough guy, but he's still got statist positions on too many issues. We issue a similar recommendation for these fellows: please return to your home states and find honest work outside government. It will do you, and the rest of us, a lot of good. Donate your remaining campaign funds to organizations fighting mental disorders.
Congress
Whoa, Nellie. Remember the Democrats were elected primarily to end the Iraq War? Well, not only have they not ended the war, they've voted more funds for the Bush administration to continue it. Meantime, the output of Congress has been new entitlements, expanded entitlements, more regulations, and of course attempts at higher taxes.
They're now looking to bring back that wonderful political musical from the 30s - The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff - that played so well then it helped keep the Depression going years longer than it would have otherwise. The main theme will be anti-protectionist with discordant notes being sung off stage by the WTO and several developing countries trying to actually work their way out of poverty -- places like Senegal, etc.
Nancy Pelosi's main accomplishment seems to have been banning smoking too close to House chamber doors. Harry Reid's main accomplishment seems to be a continuing impression of that bossy great uncle who Sam always avoided at family reunions. They both look and sound really important, but have thoroughly failed to accomplish the one clear mandate given last autumn, namely the end of the war.
Consensics
Sam proposes to replace politics, which resembles warfare in content and action, with consensics, patterned on the decision-making process of the Iroquoian Confederacy. The process eschewed factions and demanded that every possible consequence, good and bad, of a proposed action or policy be considered before a final decision, usually virtually unanimous, was made. And, by the way, a council of elder women had final, final signoff after that. How would that work for you? Sounds very good to me, given that politics in the US has now degenerated, inevitably, to the level of packs of wild hyenas fighting over carcasses. Wait, let me take that back - it's insulting to the hyenas.
Until next time...Sam in Annapolis.
(Warning Label: Sam considers active politics a legacy disorder from humanity's first 5000 years of recorded history. He hopes to help encourage the world to move toward a libertarian, limited republic system that will protect people from each other and also from politicians by not giving governments much power at all. Governments were not intended to be social service agencies, anymore than Pit Bulls were intended to be lap dogs.)
Don Siegelman
The former governor of Alabama was, according to an article in this week's Time magazine, more or less framed by prosecutors, who happened to be Republicans, and Siegelman happened to be a Democrat. Don got his start in politics as a staffer for the McGovern campaign in Alabama in 1972, and went on to be exec of the Alabama Democratic Party and hold various elected statewide offices, including governor from 1999 to 2003. He was barely defeated for re-election by Republican Bob Riley in 2002. Although Don's political ideas are nothing to write home about, from a libertarian perspective, he does not deserve, in Sam's opinion, to be sitting in a federal prison in Louisiana when there are a lot of real political crooks running free.
Ron Paul
Representative Paul continues to be the only authentic candidate in the presidential race, of either party, holding exactly the same libertarian positions he has held, and voted according to, since he first came to Congress from Texas several decades ago. (He is the only person in congressional history to win election three different times by defeating an incumbent.)
If Paul can manage to raise more money, get momentum going into January, and avoid Rottweiler interviewers like Bill O'Reilly, there is an outside chance he could be nominated or end up on the ticket with Giuliani, in which case the latter would probably adopt a lot of Paul's ideology. (Why? Because libertarian ideas are superior, of course.)
Fred Thompson
The former Senator and former television DA should return home to Tennessee as quickly as possible and help his wife raise their young daughter. Presumably he has plenty of money after several years on "Law & Order" and, being retirement age, will have plenty of time.
The Democrats
With the single exception of Bill Richardson, this is as discouraging a group of candidates as can be imagined. All want to expand government, decrease liberty, raise taxes and create a National Nanny State. None should be in public office, rather they should all be working at social service nonprofit organizations where they can satisfy their urges to do good and inflate their egos at a cost borne only by those willing to voluntarily contribute to said organizations.
The Other Republicans
Did Sam say that the Democrats are a discouraging group? Well, the other Republicans are equally discouraging, including the incredibly-flip-flopping Romney, the anti-First Amendment John McCain, etc. Mike Huckabee seems like a nice enough guy, but he's still got statist positions on too many issues. We issue a similar recommendation for these fellows: please return to your home states and find honest work outside government. It will do you, and the rest of us, a lot of good. Donate your remaining campaign funds to organizations fighting mental disorders.
Congress
Whoa, Nellie. Remember the Democrats were elected primarily to end the Iraq War? Well, not only have they not ended the war, they've voted more funds for the Bush administration to continue it. Meantime, the output of Congress has been new entitlements, expanded entitlements, more regulations, and of course attempts at higher taxes.
They're now looking to bring back that wonderful political musical from the 30s - The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff - that played so well then it helped keep the Depression going years longer than it would have otherwise. The main theme will be anti-protectionist with discordant notes being sung off stage by the WTO and several developing countries trying to actually work their way out of poverty -- places like Senegal, etc.
Nancy Pelosi's main accomplishment seems to have been banning smoking too close to House chamber doors. Harry Reid's main accomplishment seems to be a continuing impression of that bossy great uncle who Sam always avoided at family reunions. They both look and sound really important, but have thoroughly failed to accomplish the one clear mandate given last autumn, namely the end of the war.
Consensics
Sam proposes to replace politics, which resembles warfare in content and action, with consensics, patterned on the decision-making process of the Iroquoian Confederacy. The process eschewed factions and demanded that every possible consequence, good and bad, of a proposed action or policy be considered before a final decision, usually virtually unanimous, was made. And, by the way, a council of elder women had final, final signoff after that. How would that work for you? Sounds very good to me, given that politics in the US has now degenerated, inevitably, to the level of packs of wild hyenas fighting over carcasses. Wait, let me take that back - it's insulting to the hyenas.
Until next time...Sam in Annapolis.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Buddhism and liberty
It might seem curious that someone is both Buddhist and libertarian. But the two, for me, are complementary. Both place full responsibility for one's life on oneself. Intellectually, that's relatively easy to accept. To manifest that in life requires unending effort. Not "endless painful austerities" or EPAs (thanks to fellow SGI Nichiren Buddhist Greg Martin for that one), but continuous effort.
Nichiren Buddhism is based on the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in Japan in the 13th century during the era of the Kamakura shogunate. "Daishonin" is an honorific title meaning "great sage," while Nichiren, "Sun Lotus" in Japanese, was the name he gave himself after declaring his teachings, based on the Lotus Sutra with the daily practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, in 1253 at the age 0f 33. Unlike many great religious figures, Nichiren survived several attempts on his life and two exiles. In modern times, Nichiren's teachings were given new life by Japanese educators Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Josei Toda who began the lay association now known as SGI - Soka Gakkai International - in 1930. Toda's close disciple Daisaku Ikeda is president of SGI.
Anyone interested in more information can visit the SGI-USA website at www.sgi-usa.org
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is chiefly concerned with governance of society - what is the proper size and role of government and how to limit its power since politicians, thoughout history, tend to accumulate as much power as possible to the detriment of individual freedom. Buddhism does not support or oppose any particular political or economic system -- Nichiren lived and taught, for example, in a rigidly feudal environment, and was persecuted for speaking out against various injustices as one might expect -- but Buddhism does teach that governance should be based on respect for the dignity and value of human life.
Logically, enlightened governance could emanate from an enlightened monarch -- the great Buddhist King Ashoka of ancient India is an example. That has happened only rarely within history, so infrequently in fact that the British historian H. G. Wells cited Ashoka as the one decent ruler he could find in all of human history, although I would argue there have been others here and there. (It's interesting that Wells, a socialist, could find only one great ruler to admire, and that ruler was not very socialist: Ashoka funded his vast public works and social welfare programs mostly from income from his own farms. Taxes were extremely low during his reign, and commerce took place in a free market environment.)
Enlightened governance can also emanate from a democratic government, with some strong provisos, among them that the "demos" in question is very well educated and highly engaged in public affairs. This appears to have happened only when the democracies in question are small, the number of voting citizens relatively few, and the culture militates for active engagement. In larger democracies where any absolute restraints have been effectively removed, majorities can and have become conduits for tyranny.
The best path to enlightened governance begins with a culture that recognizes the rights, sovereignty and dignity of the individual and whose basic laws - whose constitution - contains absolute restraints on government power. These boundaries are intended to prevent the governors, and majorities of voters, from taking away the rights of individuals. If the boundaries are breached, and not repaired, governance degenerates into institutionalized group warfare - what Buddhists would term the "worlds of anger and animality" -- and what we might call a "Darwinian nightmare of competing special interest groups" as cartoonist Gary Trudeau put it many years ago.
Both Buddhists and libertarians insist on freedom of religion and conscience as fundamental rights and that the role of religion in society is an individual one, to be determined by each individual for himself or herself, free from any coercion by authority or by others.
Libertarians think that government can only create the conditions whereby individuals can prosper and help each other, voluntarily. Buddhists believe that only an individual can change his or her own life at the fundamental level, and that this change, or "human revolution," ripples out among all the other individuals he or she deals with in life.
Those two ideas seem, to me, complementary. And it seems like a very good time to bring this wisdom to bear in the United States as we struggle to find our way out of a kind of existential wilderness now dominated by distortions, delusions and thoughtlessness.
Nichiren Buddhism is based on the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in Japan in the 13th century during the era of the Kamakura shogunate. "Daishonin" is an honorific title meaning "great sage," while Nichiren, "Sun Lotus" in Japanese, was the name he gave himself after declaring his teachings, based on the Lotus Sutra with the daily practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, in 1253 at the age 0f 33. Unlike many great religious figures, Nichiren survived several attempts on his life and two exiles. In modern times, Nichiren's teachings were given new life by Japanese educators Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Josei Toda who began the lay association now known as SGI - Soka Gakkai International - in 1930. Toda's close disciple Daisaku Ikeda is president of SGI.
Anyone interested in more information can visit the SGI-USA website at www.sgi-usa.org
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is chiefly concerned with governance of society - what is the proper size and role of government and how to limit its power since politicians, thoughout history, tend to accumulate as much power as possible to the detriment of individual freedom. Buddhism does not support or oppose any particular political or economic system -- Nichiren lived and taught, for example, in a rigidly feudal environment, and was persecuted for speaking out against various injustices as one might expect -- but Buddhism does teach that governance should be based on respect for the dignity and value of human life.
Logically, enlightened governance could emanate from an enlightened monarch -- the great Buddhist King Ashoka of ancient India is an example. That has happened only rarely within history, so infrequently in fact that the British historian H. G. Wells cited Ashoka as the one decent ruler he could find in all of human history, although I would argue there have been others here and there. (It's interesting that Wells, a socialist, could find only one great ruler to admire, and that ruler was not very socialist: Ashoka funded his vast public works and social welfare programs mostly from income from his own farms. Taxes were extremely low during his reign, and commerce took place in a free market environment.)
Enlightened governance can also emanate from a democratic government, with some strong provisos, among them that the "demos" in question is very well educated and highly engaged in public affairs. This appears to have happened only when the democracies in question are small, the number of voting citizens relatively few, and the culture militates for active engagement. In larger democracies where any absolute restraints have been effectively removed, majorities can and have become conduits for tyranny.
The best path to enlightened governance begins with a culture that recognizes the rights, sovereignty and dignity of the individual and whose basic laws - whose constitution - contains absolute restraints on government power. These boundaries are intended to prevent the governors, and majorities of voters, from taking away the rights of individuals. If the boundaries are breached, and not repaired, governance degenerates into institutionalized group warfare - what Buddhists would term the "worlds of anger and animality" -- and what we might call a "Darwinian nightmare of competing special interest groups" as cartoonist Gary Trudeau put it many years ago.
Both Buddhists and libertarians insist on freedom of religion and conscience as fundamental rights and that the role of religion in society is an individual one, to be determined by each individual for himself or herself, free from any coercion by authority or by others.
Libertarians think that government can only create the conditions whereby individuals can prosper and help each other, voluntarily. Buddhists believe that only an individual can change his or her own life at the fundamental level, and that this change, or "human revolution," ripples out among all the other individuals he or she deals with in life.
Those two ideas seem, to me, complementary. And it seems like a very good time to bring this wisdom to bear in the United States as we struggle to find our way out of a kind of existential wilderness now dominated by distortions, delusions and thoughtlessness.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Richard Dawkins in Virginia
The famous British atheist, professor Richard Dawkins, was in Virginia over the weekend for a meeting of the Atheist Alliance. Dr. Dawkins frontally assaults monotheism and has been labeled "Darwin's Rottweiler" for his defense of evolution against creationism. Although Dawkins' sincereity is not at issue, he seems to come from what Buddhists would call the "worlds of anger and animality." His confrontational style, which precludes dialogue with Christians, Jews and Muslims who do believe in God, is counterproductive.
American, and indeed all, atheists might be interested to know that Buddhism is a religion which does not posit the existence of an external supreme being and whose doctrines - at least those of Mahayana and specifically Nichiren Buddhism - accord perfectly with science.
But it is notable to mention that, as different as the beliefs of Buddhists and monotheists are, Buddhist leaders such as the Dalai Lama and Dr. Daisaku Ikeda have found, and taken, many opportunities to engage in dialogue with Christians, Jews and Muslims. Dialogue between people of widely diverse views is critical. Dr. Dawkins would do well to investigate dialogue further.
American, and indeed all, atheists might be interested to know that Buddhism is a religion which does not posit the existence of an external supreme being and whose doctrines - at least those of Mahayana and specifically Nichiren Buddhism - accord perfectly with science.
But it is notable to mention that, as different as the beliefs of Buddhists and monotheists are, Buddhist leaders such as the Dalai Lama and Dr. Daisaku Ikeda have found, and taken, many opportunities to engage in dialogue with Christians, Jews and Muslims. Dialogue between people of widely diverse views is critical. Dr. Dawkins would do well to investigate dialogue further.
Monday morning musings
What are the similarities between rock and movie stars and politicians, at least the ones in the US? What is the common threat of American celebrity.
Last night, I discussed this, and several other things, with a good friend I've known since high school who has lived in Florida for many years.
Among other common threads: celebrities, and politicians, do not actually have to do anything of real consequence, but simply continue to entertain us. Depending on your personal or political inclinations, you can cast a celebrity or politician as a good guy or a bad guy. When your good guys look good, you cheer. When your bad guys do things you don't like, you boo.
There are, of course, exceptions to this, but the exceptions tend to be few and far between.
Unfortunately, although elected politicians may not do anything of consequence, they have access to (our) tax money and one degree or another of power, hence they have the potential to do us great harm. Rock and movie stars typically can only harm themselves, unless you take seriously what they say off mic and camera.
The prevalent fascination with celebrities and politicians - more the former than the latter - is fanned outrageously by the media. This is cut from the same cloth, I believe, as the old Roman "bread and circuses" strategy of the Caesars. They believed that keeping the Roman people hynotized with various public entertainments, such as gladitorial battles in the arena, and providing them free bread, would keep their minds off what was going on with the government. It worked fairly well for a number of centuries, at least from the ruling elite's point of view.
Although the Caesars used "bread and circuses" by design, today it is no longer necessary that a small cabal of venal people meet secretly to plan this out. The culture we have in place - the "memes," as Eric Drexler dubbed them twenty years ago, that circulate militate for a bread and circuses culture.
However, as freedoms are being stripped away, and the US and other large governments growing more and more to resemble the Caesarian Roman empire, the concern must be raised about what lies ahead? We do not seem, in the vast majority, to be paying much attention, and what attention there is seems focused on expanding the pattern, not changing it.
At the same time, we have an incredible opportunity in this century to change that pattern, perhaps once and for all, with a new paradigm about culture, society and governance. That paradigm is not a collectivist one - that's been tried and did not work - nor any kind of authoritarian one - that only works for a small elite. The paradigm contains a spirtual component, but not one which places responsibility outside the human being, and certainly not one which fails to recognize the dignity and sanctity of human life as a fundamental principle.
The change that must come about can only be made by individuals, and from the change in their lives, radiating out to affect their families, places of work, and all other aspects of society they touch. This squarely places responsibility on each of us. To the extent we embrace this with our minds and hearts, and work to carry it out in our lives, is the extent to which we will avoid repeating the failures of ancient Rome and the really awful, dark centuries that followed in Europe.
Last night, I discussed this, and several other things, with a good friend I've known since high school who has lived in Florida for many years.
Among other common threads: celebrities, and politicians, do not actually have to do anything of real consequence, but simply continue to entertain us. Depending on your personal or political inclinations, you can cast a celebrity or politician as a good guy or a bad guy. When your good guys look good, you cheer. When your bad guys do things you don't like, you boo.
There are, of course, exceptions to this, but the exceptions tend to be few and far between.
Unfortunately, although elected politicians may not do anything of consequence, they have access to (our) tax money and one degree or another of power, hence they have the potential to do us great harm. Rock and movie stars typically can only harm themselves, unless you take seriously what they say off mic and camera.
The prevalent fascination with celebrities and politicians - more the former than the latter - is fanned outrageously by the media. This is cut from the same cloth, I believe, as the old Roman "bread and circuses" strategy of the Caesars. They believed that keeping the Roman people hynotized with various public entertainments, such as gladitorial battles in the arena, and providing them free bread, would keep their minds off what was going on with the government. It worked fairly well for a number of centuries, at least from the ruling elite's point of view.
Although the Caesars used "bread and circuses" by design, today it is no longer necessary that a small cabal of venal people meet secretly to plan this out. The culture we have in place - the "memes," as Eric Drexler dubbed them twenty years ago, that circulate militate for a bread and circuses culture.
However, as freedoms are being stripped away, and the US and other large governments growing more and more to resemble the Caesarian Roman empire, the concern must be raised about what lies ahead? We do not seem, in the vast majority, to be paying much attention, and what attention there is seems focused on expanding the pattern, not changing it.
At the same time, we have an incredible opportunity in this century to change that pattern, perhaps once and for all, with a new paradigm about culture, society and governance. That paradigm is not a collectivist one - that's been tried and did not work - nor any kind of authoritarian one - that only works for a small elite. The paradigm contains a spirtual component, but not one which places responsibility outside the human being, and certainly not one which fails to recognize the dignity and sanctity of human life as a fundamental principle.
The change that must come about can only be made by individuals, and from the change in their lives, radiating out to affect their families, places of work, and all other aspects of society they touch. This squarely places responsibility on each of us. To the extent we embrace this with our minds and hearts, and work to carry it out in our lives, is the extent to which we will avoid repeating the failures of ancient Rome and the really awful, dark centuries that followed in Europe.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Welcome to my blog
Two people actually asked me to start blogging - one in a friendly way, the other so that I would quit hijacking someone elses's blog. So here we are, the first day of my blogging career, September 27, 2007. Whether it's an auspicious day, or not, is yet to be determined. The moon is full, however.
Sam is a libertarian, a Buddhist and works in nonprofit fundraising. He is more aware than ever that he does not have all the answers, and is working through many issues as diligently as possible. Posts will deal with a variety of topics, as you might imagine revolving around those areas. Sam's style will fall somewhere between Henry David Thoreau and Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert and blog of the same name.
Unlike Thoreau, Sam did not live in the 19th century, but admires the writing style of American Transcentalists. Like Adams, one of Sam's means of self-therapy is to attempt to be unremittingly honest about what is happening in the world, while striving to do the same for himself.
Sam is a libertarian, a Buddhist and works in nonprofit fundraising. He is more aware than ever that he does not have all the answers, and is working through many issues as diligently as possible. Posts will deal with a variety of topics, as you might imagine revolving around those areas. Sam's style will fall somewhere between Henry David Thoreau and Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert and blog of the same name.
Unlike Thoreau, Sam did not live in the 19th century, but admires the writing style of American Transcentalists. Like Adams, one of Sam's means of self-therapy is to attempt to be unremittingly honest about what is happening in the world, while striving to do the same for himself.
Ending wars
Two things will be necessary to stop this country from continuing to wage wars like Iraq:
1. The culture of the country must change – i.e., enough people must be become convinced war is a bad idea except in the most extreme circumstances, (e.g., the Iranians have landed at Annapolis and are marching on DC) – that no politician left or right will even consider advocating or implementing a pro-interventionist-imperialist policy.
2. The left must realize that a large, highly interventionist government at home is necessarily a government that will want to suppress civil liberties here and try to establish an empire to run abroad – when in human history has that not been the case?
The two go hand in hand – it happened with ancient China, Egypt, Rome, and more recently Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, etc. If the government isn’t too big, and doesn’t have too many resources, it’s not going to be undertaking multi-billion-dollar foreign military adventures. Seems simple enough, but not enough folks get it.
Emerson, Thoreau, Douglass and other 19th century Americans whose mantle today’s left-interventionists claim were in fact classical liberals/libertarians. Thoreau once wrote that “The government which governs best, governs not at all,” upping the ante on Jefferson.
American 19th century classical liberals opposed the expansionism that led to the Mexican War (which was backed by the slave-owning South) were vehemently abolitionist, but were just as vehemently against large government. Thoreau famously went to jail for refusing to pay a tax that would have supported the Mexican War and scolded Emerson from his jail cell for not being imprisoned with him.
They understood the link between leviathan-size government, suppression of civil liberties and imperialist wars, a link we seem to have completely forgotten about.
1. The culture of the country must change – i.e., enough people must be become convinced war is a bad idea except in the most extreme circumstances, (e.g., the Iranians have landed at Annapolis and are marching on DC) – that no politician left or right will even consider advocating or implementing a pro-interventionist-imperialist policy.
2. The left must realize that a large, highly interventionist government at home is necessarily a government that will want to suppress civil liberties here and try to establish an empire to run abroad – when in human history has that not been the case?
The two go hand in hand – it happened with ancient China, Egypt, Rome, and more recently Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, etc. If the government isn’t too big, and doesn’t have too many resources, it’s not going to be undertaking multi-billion-dollar foreign military adventures. Seems simple enough, but not enough folks get it.
Emerson, Thoreau, Douglass and other 19th century Americans whose mantle today’s left-interventionists claim were in fact classical liberals/libertarians. Thoreau once wrote that “The government which governs best, governs not at all,” upping the ante on Jefferson.
American 19th century classical liberals opposed the expansionism that led to the Mexican War (which was backed by the slave-owning South) were vehemently abolitionist, but were just as vehemently against large government. Thoreau famously went to jail for refusing to pay a tax that would have supported the Mexican War and scolded Emerson from his jail cell for not being imprisoned with him.
They understood the link between leviathan-size government, suppression of civil liberties and imperialist wars, a link we seem to have completely forgotten about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)