There recently have been statements and editorials critical of the strident and sometimes hostile outbursts occurring on the web and at public rallies across the nation. Many have expressed dismay at the growing animosity in public debates. Recent harsh comments concerning Ted Kennedy and his legacy are a case in point.
It is my opinion that one reason for the rising hostility in political discourse is the centralization of power in Washington. When major policy decisions are made by people far removed from those affected by them, it can often be a source of resentment to those who must live by those policies. Insofar as those decisions are seen as made by others (which is usually the case), there is a natural resentment on the part of those burdened by those policies. This resentment is exacerbated by the sense that there is little, if any, chance that those policies can be affected by those unhappy with them.
If one is unhappy with a decision made by their city council, it is easy enough to go down to city hall and protest, or hold a rally in the park. There is a greater sense of efficacy on the part of the citizens because they feel they can have an impact on local policy. However, the further one travels from local government, the more difficult it becomes for citizens to affect policy. And, the less affect citizens can have on policy, the greater the potential for frustration and bitterness.
The chance that a dissatisfied or disgruntled citizen can have any impact on federal policy is infinitesimal. This frustration can be offset somewhat if the unhappy citizen is able to find a group that shares his dissatisfaction and so add his ire to theirs. Often though, the frustration borne by the unhappy citizen is shared by the interest group. This is because the same obstacle that frustrates the citizen can frustrate the interest group. Only a large, well funded interest group, such as the AMA or the Urban League can have any hope of affecting policy. And, when the individual throws his lot in with a large interest group, he soon finds that he has as little ability to affect the policy of that interest group as he did with the government. If, on the other hand, the individual chooses to throw his lot in with a smaller interest group better tailored to his grievance, he soon finds to his dismay that his voice is linked to a group with only minimal ability to affect policy beyond holding rallies and issuing press releases.
I believe that the frustration, bitterness, and sometimes plain petulance on display in various rallies and protests across the nation is a result of the growing sense of powerlessness on the part of communities and individuals to influence policy decisions that affect them. People have come to believe that they must yell louder and display greater outrage to have any chance of being noticed. One does not have to yell or wave his arms in a small room to be listened to. Like the fan who dresses and acts outrageously at a game hoping that, if he does so, the camera might be more inclined to focus on him, if only for a moment, protesters hope that if they yell loudly enough, or behave shockingly enough, their voices might be heard; if only for a moment. The impotence of individuals and small groups to affect national policy is a major source of the bitterness on display at many rallies. This bitterness, and the hostility borne by it, is something the federal government, by it's very nature, cannot address.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Miracles and Parlour Tricks
A conservative blog site asked readers to submit their suggestions for the top ten conservative movies of all time. Many of the movies nominated were were not surprising; Patton, Ben Hur, Forrest Gump, even Batman. I nominated one myself. The post got me thinking about some movies I have enjoyed over the years. One in particular came to mind; "The Ruling Class" starring Peter O'Toole. "Ruling Class" is about the scion of a wealthy, aristocratic family in England. After the scandalous death of the Earl, the family is desperate to keep the estate in the family. The problem is that the only heir to the estate (Peter O'Toole) is in a lunatic asylum for believing he is Jesus Christ. Desperate, the family calls in a prominent psychiatrist (the local "Master of Lunacy") to cure O'Toole so he can assume control over the estate.
The psychiatrist confronts O'Toole and asks him that, if he is truly Christ, would he mind showing him a miracle. O'Toole obliges and asks the doctor to hold out his hand. The doctor does so. "There is your miracle" pronounces O'Toole, "the miracle of the human hand." The doctor sneers at O'Toole's offering and demands a "real" miracle and asks O'Toole to levitate the sofa. O'Toole sighs; "every day you see a thousand miracles, and yet you insist on cheap parlour tricks." How many of us, surrounded as we are by countless wonders and miracles, still demand that God prove himself by performing some cheap parlour trick?
It is of note that after he is "cured", O'Toole's character takes his place in the House of Lords, and becomes a murderer.
The psychiatrist confronts O'Toole and asks him that, if he is truly Christ, would he mind showing him a miracle. O'Toole obliges and asks the doctor to hold out his hand. The doctor does so. "There is your miracle" pronounces O'Toole, "the miracle of the human hand." The doctor sneers at O'Toole's offering and demands a "real" miracle and asks O'Toole to levitate the sofa. O'Toole sighs; "every day you see a thousand miracles, and yet you insist on cheap parlour tricks." How many of us, surrounded as we are by countless wonders and miracles, still demand that God prove himself by performing some cheap parlour trick?
It is of note that after he is "cured", O'Toole's character takes his place in the House of Lords, and becomes a murderer.
Government Stimulus Package?
After reading an article this morning, I wish I could say I was surprised at reading that much of the "federal stimulus" money is to be distributed, not to the people, but to government. Federal funding is to be used to pay for a great variety of projects such as repaving streets, repairing seismic, volcano, and stream gages, changing light fixtures, and planting trees. Cities and states all around the country are compiling lists of projects and programs to be resuscitated and implemented with federal funds. The federal government can't seem to give money away fast enough. $199 million for a border checkpoint in Nevada, $15 million for another checkpoint in North Dakota (none for Laredo. Politics?). The government seems unable to give the money away fast enough. In its rush to distribute money, the government even sent checks to 200 prison inmates in Texas.
From what I have read, under the stimulus package nearly one trillion dollars is going to be spent, and most of it by the federal government. While some of it is being spent by non-government agencies, most is not. We are simply witnessing the phenomenon of government giving money to itself while telling us that they are spending it for our benefit. My impression is that what the Obama administration is most interested in stimulating is the federal government. It is not called a federal stimulus package for nothing. The objective seems to be to invigorate government as a catalyst for economic activity and further entrench it in the economic, political, and social life of the nation. As they say, to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail; and Obama has a hammer.
Federal money is like heroin; once you become addicted to it you cannot imagine living without it. And the federal government is determined to keep us hooked. One result of the Obama administration pushing money on state and local governments is that it will increase their dependence on federal government. This is a sound strategy if what you're selling is federal government.
From what I have read, under the stimulus package nearly one trillion dollars is going to be spent, and most of it by the federal government. While some of it is being spent by non-government agencies, most is not. We are simply witnessing the phenomenon of government giving money to itself while telling us that they are spending it for our benefit. My impression is that what the Obama administration is most interested in stimulating is the federal government. It is not called a federal stimulus package for nothing. The objective seems to be to invigorate government as a catalyst for economic activity and further entrench it in the economic, political, and social life of the nation. As they say, to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail; and Obama has a hammer.
Federal money is like heroin; once you become addicted to it you cannot imagine living without it. And the federal government is determined to keep us hooked. One result of the Obama administration pushing money on state and local governments is that it will increase their dependence on federal government. This is a sound strategy if what you're selling is federal government.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
What torture?
From what I have read, there is still debate concerning whether "torture" is a useful or necessary tool in our war on terror. I have placed quotation marks around the word "torture" because it is a subject of debate. Methods that some consider torture are embraced by others as legitimate interrogation techniques. The higher the stakes, the more blurred the line becomes. It has been argued that the nation's security is at stake and so aggressive interrogation, if not torture, is warranted. While torture for torture's sake has often occurred, it has seldom reached the scale of torture in behalf of a grand or noble cause such as the salvation of the soul or the security of the state.
The word "torture" has been parsed and debated. The presence or lack of of physical disability or maiming, the length and degree of pain inflicted, the degree of psychological stress applied, the extent of horror threatened, all weigh in the debate over what constitutes torture. I would suggest that the measure of torture be whether we would tolerate such methods to be used against our soldiers and citizens. If we would not, we should reassess our use of those methods.
The necessity of torture has often been argued in cases where the stakes are high. Soviet torture of peasants suspected of hoarding grain was claimed necessary to prevent starvation. Torture of heretics was claimed necessary for the salvation of their souls. Torture of prisoners has often been claimed necessary to prevent an outrage or calamity from occurring. Threats to the security of the state or realm have often fallen into this category, as well as the fear of imminent attack. It is unclear how effective torture has been in these instances since those being tortured are often inclined to spill their guts, so to speak, to satisfy their tormentor, whether their confession is truthful or not.
What is clear is that the diminution of torture over time, with some notable exceptions, indicates that its usefulness as a method or instrument of gathering information and preserving public order and safety has fallen into disfavor. Perhaps this is in part due to the phenomenon that the fear of torture is often more effective than the torture itself. So why torture? In order to instill the fear of torture, some have to be tortured so as to demonstrate the resolve of the interrogators. In this case, those tortured are not tormented for the sake of information, but to intimidate other prisoners and potential trouble makers into compliance. This is a motive that civilized people ought to find reprehensible.
Torture, as a practice, is evidence of cruelty and sadism more often than resolve. Those who are intrigued, rather than appalled, by accounts of torture are the ones likely to torture pets and become serial killers; or aspire to work for the CIA. Those who tolerate torture display a numbness toward humanity troubling for its absence of compassion. Those who support torture exhibit a callous indifference and a cold cruelty out of step with civilization.
It is worth noting that torture of suspects is just that, torture of suspects. We are not just torturing terrorists, but those only suspected of being terrorists. Presumably, the determination of whether they are terrorists or not is only made after they are tortured. I fear that if I was tortured, I might even confess to being a terrorist.
The word "torture" has been parsed and debated. The presence or lack of of physical disability or maiming, the length and degree of pain inflicted, the degree of psychological stress applied, the extent of horror threatened, all weigh in the debate over what constitutes torture. I would suggest that the measure of torture be whether we would tolerate such methods to be used against our soldiers and citizens. If we would not, we should reassess our use of those methods.
The necessity of torture has often been argued in cases where the stakes are high. Soviet torture of peasants suspected of hoarding grain was claimed necessary to prevent starvation. Torture of heretics was claimed necessary for the salvation of their souls. Torture of prisoners has often been claimed necessary to prevent an outrage or calamity from occurring. Threats to the security of the state or realm have often fallen into this category, as well as the fear of imminent attack. It is unclear how effective torture has been in these instances since those being tortured are often inclined to spill their guts, so to speak, to satisfy their tormentor, whether their confession is truthful or not.
What is clear is that the diminution of torture over time, with some notable exceptions, indicates that its usefulness as a method or instrument of gathering information and preserving public order and safety has fallen into disfavor. Perhaps this is in part due to the phenomenon that the fear of torture is often more effective than the torture itself. So why torture? In order to instill the fear of torture, some have to be tortured so as to demonstrate the resolve of the interrogators. In this case, those tortured are not tormented for the sake of information, but to intimidate other prisoners and potential trouble makers into compliance. This is a motive that civilized people ought to find reprehensible.
Torture, as a practice, is evidence of cruelty and sadism more often than resolve. Those who are intrigued, rather than appalled, by accounts of torture are the ones likely to torture pets and become serial killers; or aspire to work for the CIA. Those who tolerate torture display a numbness toward humanity troubling for its absence of compassion. Those who support torture exhibit a callous indifference and a cold cruelty out of step with civilization.
It is worth noting that torture of suspects is just that, torture of suspects. We are not just torturing terrorists, but those only suspected of being terrorists. Presumably, the determination of whether they are terrorists or not is only made after they are tortured. I fear that if I was tortured, I might even confess to being a terrorist.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Vanishing Work Ethic
There was an editorial in this morning's "Dallas Morning News" by Steven Malanga regarding the vanishing Protestant ethic in the U.S. Malanga attributes the erosion of the traditional protestant ethic of hard work, responsibility, and restraint to the decline of the social and ethical principals on which this nation was founded. He also convincingly makes the argument that the decline of thrift and modesty lay beneath the rise of consumerism and avarice. I would only add covetousness to his list as a factor in undermining the principals on which this nation was founded.
I found the article to be well written, thorough, persuasive, and vaguely familiar.
I found the article to be well written, thorough, persuasive, and vaguely familiar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)