The President's initiative in the Middle East has never been a sure thing. But I have argued, and still believe, that it was a calculated risk worth taking and continues to be a calculated risk worth supporting. But what if it does not work? What are our options, if for whatever reasons, the attempt to remake the Middle East fails?
Some background: why is it so important that our project for "renewal in Iraq" and beyond succeed? After 9/11, it was apparent to any observer that the status quo in the Middle East was no longer tenable for the United States. Our Cold-War era, "pragmatic" policy of accommodating and facilitating tyrannical regimes, for reasons of vital national interest, wrought a generation of jihadists intent on Islamic revolution. The Islamists hated their own exploitative and corrupt governments, they hated Israel, and they hated us for enabling the two primary objects of their enmity. 9/11 illustrated in the most horrific manner that our great island fortress could be penetrated by these jihadists, and likely would be again. America was under attack.
The project to remake the Middle East into a more just and safer place for its own people, and more friendly in general to the United States and the rest of Western civilization, was an attempt to "drain the swamp." A freer, more democratic Middle East, so the theory went, would take responsibility for itself and be consumed with self-improvement, looking inward instead of outward, which would drastically reduce the threat of terrorism. We would become brothers, bonded by our mutual love for self-determination, amelioration and peace.
Frankly, the Bush administration vastly underestimated how hard this would be. While some academics tossed around the Philippine precedent and laid out timetables of four, five, six years and beyond, I do not think that is what Washington believed. I fear that the Bush administration really thought, with a little luck, this thing might go fairly quickly and easily, and then we could move on to the next outlaw. We did not fully understand the challenge. Perhaps that was a blessing. In any event, to the surprise of some, we encountered a great battle in Iraq. But that doesn't mean that we are cooked. We need to stay tough and win. Iraq is the key. If we can stabilize Iraq, our aspiration for a safer Middle East is well on the way to success.
What happens if Iraq never gets better, and circumstances force the US to abandon the project to reform the Middle East? Are we back to square one? No. If we leave Iraq in defeat and disarray, we are actually much worse off than we were the day after 9/11. The world will no longer be a safe place for Americans to travel or do business. What will that mean? It will inaugurate a radical transformation of American life.
I have never accepted the President's explanation that the Islamists hate us because of our liberty (at least not in the commonly accepted sense of that word). That is, I don't believe that the jihadists' detestation for our freedom impels them to go out of their way to kill us. Osama doesn't hate us because we are free; he hates us because we are powerful and play a dominant role in his world.
Undoubtedly, Osama et al view American culture as corrupt and corrosive, and they are right (see Part I). If the President means liberty in the libertine sense, then maybe he touches on part of what Osama and his ilk have against us. But that in itself does not explain the existence of al Qaeda.
The complicated terror network organized to humble the United States exists to break the American hegemony on their side of the world so that the jihadists can foment a revolution over there unhindered. In that way too, 9/11 is similar to Pearl Harbor: Japan attempted to obliterate the US naval presence in the Pacific not to conquer the United States, but to give Japan free reign to conquer the Pacific. Like our presence in the Pacific during the 1930s and 40s, we have myriad self-interested reasons to be in the Middle East, but we also play a stabilizing role in the region.
To an extent, and there is deep irony here for the neo-traditionalists, this project is a war to make the world safe for economic globalization. Some of the least imaginative of the anti-war protesters have called Iraq a "war for oil." Three-dollar per gallon gas takes a bit of the wind out of that conspiracy slogan, but it survives nevertheless. But in truth, our mission to remake the Middle East is consistent with American policy since the dawning of American imperialism: we strive for influence and power in the world in order to protect American business interests.
Can we do something that will make the Islamists leave us alone? Yes. We can pack up and go home. We can fold our tent and leave the Middle East to the Arabs. In the early moments of the national crisis following 9/11, I believed that the safest course would be complete retreat, a return to isolationism. President Bush offered a different course, which was bold and risky, but, if successful, preserves our way of life. I credit him for his strength and courage in that moment, and I have supported him completely.
However, if Bushism does not work, returning to the pre-9/11 realities is not an option. The remaining option is Buchanism: neo-isolationism. We will leave our friends in the Middle East to fend for themselves, and pull-up stakes as the key player in, and international protector of, the global economy. Failure will force us into an involuntary retreat.
Therefore, if we fail in Iraq, we leave American business interests in the Middle East unprotected and irresistible targets for Islamist revolutionaries. If our ability to protect our interests abroad collapses, then our economic empire necessarily disintegrates as well.
What then?
We turn the clock back one hundred years and return to the insular republic of the nineteenth century. It will mean that our culture will need fewer academics, poets, entertainers and service providers. More of us will need to work for a living, making things and growing things. Our lives will change dramatically.
Some background: why is it so important that our project for "renewal in Iraq" and beyond succeed? After 9/11, it was apparent to any observer that the status quo in the Middle East was no longer tenable for the United States. Our Cold-War era, "pragmatic" policy of accommodating and facilitating tyrannical regimes, for reasons of vital national interest, wrought a generation of jihadists intent on Islamic revolution. The Islamists hated their own exploitative and corrupt governments, they hated Israel, and they hated us for enabling the two primary objects of their enmity. 9/11 illustrated in the most horrific manner that our great island fortress could be penetrated by these jihadists, and likely would be again. America was under attack.
The project to remake the Middle East into a more just and safer place for its own people, and more friendly in general to the United States and the rest of Western civilization, was an attempt to "drain the swamp." A freer, more democratic Middle East, so the theory went, would take responsibility for itself and be consumed with self-improvement, looking inward instead of outward, which would drastically reduce the threat of terrorism. We would become brothers, bonded by our mutual love for self-determination, amelioration and peace.
Frankly, the Bush administration vastly underestimated how hard this would be. While some academics tossed around the Philippine precedent and laid out timetables of four, five, six years and beyond, I do not think that is what Washington believed. I fear that the Bush administration really thought, with a little luck, this thing might go fairly quickly and easily, and then we could move on to the next outlaw. We did not fully understand the challenge. Perhaps that was a blessing. In any event, to the surprise of some, we encountered a great battle in Iraq. But that doesn't mean that we are cooked. We need to stay tough and win. Iraq is the key. If we can stabilize Iraq, our aspiration for a safer Middle East is well on the way to success.
What happens if Iraq never gets better, and circumstances force the US to abandon the project to reform the Middle East? Are we back to square one? No. If we leave Iraq in defeat and disarray, we are actually much worse off than we were the day after 9/11. The world will no longer be a safe place for Americans to travel or do business. What will that mean? It will inaugurate a radical transformation of American life.
I have never accepted the President's explanation that the Islamists hate us because of our liberty (at least not in the commonly accepted sense of that word). That is, I don't believe that the jihadists' detestation for our freedom impels them to go out of their way to kill us. Osama doesn't hate us because we are free; he hates us because we are powerful and play a dominant role in his world.
Undoubtedly, Osama et al view American culture as corrupt and corrosive, and they are right (see Part I). If the President means liberty in the libertine sense, then maybe he touches on part of what Osama and his ilk have against us. But that in itself does not explain the existence of al Qaeda.
The complicated terror network organized to humble the United States exists to break the American hegemony on their side of the world so that the jihadists can foment a revolution over there unhindered. In that way too, 9/11 is similar to Pearl Harbor: Japan attempted to obliterate the US naval presence in the Pacific not to conquer the United States, but to give Japan free reign to conquer the Pacific. Like our presence in the Pacific during the 1930s and 40s, we have myriad self-interested reasons to be in the Middle East, but we also play a stabilizing role in the region.
To an extent, and there is deep irony here for the neo-traditionalists, this project is a war to make the world safe for economic globalization. Some of the least imaginative of the anti-war protesters have called Iraq a "war for oil." Three-dollar per gallon gas takes a bit of the wind out of that conspiracy slogan, but it survives nevertheless. But in truth, our mission to remake the Middle East is consistent with American policy since the dawning of American imperialism: we strive for influence and power in the world in order to protect American business interests.
Can we do something that will make the Islamists leave us alone? Yes. We can pack up and go home. We can fold our tent and leave the Middle East to the Arabs. In the early moments of the national crisis following 9/11, I believed that the safest course would be complete retreat, a return to isolationism. President Bush offered a different course, which was bold and risky, but, if successful, preserves our way of life. I credit him for his strength and courage in that moment, and I have supported him completely.
However, if Bushism does not work, returning to the pre-9/11 realities is not an option. The remaining option is Buchanism: neo-isolationism. We will leave our friends in the Middle East to fend for themselves, and pull-up stakes as the key player in, and international protector of, the global economy. Failure will force us into an involuntary retreat.
Therefore, if we fail in Iraq, we leave American business interests in the Middle East unprotected and irresistible targets for Islamist revolutionaries. If our ability to protect our interests abroad collapses, then our economic empire necessarily disintegrates as well.
What then?
We turn the clock back one hundred years and return to the insular republic of the nineteenth century. It will mean that our culture will need fewer academics, poets, entertainers and service providers. More of us will need to work for a living, making things and growing things. Our lives will change dramatically.
Category: US in Iraq.archive
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The "War on Terror" is winnable.
I am currently watching Eric Alterman on C-SPAN this morning. If you don't know him, Alterman makes the case that the mainstream media is not "liberal." His assertion: rightwing propagandists manufactured the "liberal media" myth to give the conservative media (which does exist) a raison d'etre. He also makes the point (not original to him), among myriad others--coming, seemingly, at the speed of light, that a "war on terror" is impossible. That is, the word "terror" describes a phenomenon, which makes prosecuting a war on terror unlike fighting a war with England, Mexico, Spain, Germany or Japan--all nations with seats of government and conventional armies.
Actually, Alterman's point is not completely incompatible with the conservative complaint that "terrorism" is an unhelpful euphemism for "Islamofascism." Okie Gardener has argued that this "sloppy terminology relates to sloppy thinking: and we must be clear-headed" in this all-important appointment with destiny.
However, I am not nearly as disturbed by the imprecise terminology. As long as we know what we mean, we are fine. (Of course, whether we know what we mean is an entirely different question.) Notwithstanding, I have written privately, even if we don't call an Islamofascist an Islamofascist, their rotting corpses will smell just as putrid by any other name. But that assumes that we can kill all the terrorists, which is impractical (and not in keeping with the American personality). We are an evangelical and evangelistic people. We prefer to convert rather than eliminate. We generally have the stomach to strike out in anger against an offensive dictator or an "axis of evil," but, once our blood cools, we prefer to make peace with our enemies and convert them to our point of view. As a people, we have never demonstrated stamina for war or an ability to maintain a protracted vendetta against a malefactor.
How will we win the war on terror? By that I mean, how will we put out the fire in the Middle East that threatens American lives and interests? Perhaps the cruelest component of the President's War on Terror is that, ultimately, we must infect the world with the disease that is killing us, consumerism and indulgence and self absorption. Once the potential Islamofascists get a "whiff of the free markets" (a phrase our President was fond of using during the campaign of 2000), the erstwhile Islamic fundamentalists will be too busy paying off credit cards and watching MTV to kill us.
I still believe we can win the war on terror. It will be a long journey. As I have argued recently, Iraq must be pacified quickly (the clock on Iraq is running out). But the greater Middle East project is attainable in the same way that the Cold War was achievable, with a bipartisan concerted effort over a series of presidential administrations.
However, the President's initiative in the Middle East has always been a gamble. What if this does not work? What are our options?
Part II & III.
I am currently watching Eric Alterman on C-SPAN this morning. If you don't know him, Alterman makes the case that the mainstream media is not "liberal." His assertion: rightwing propagandists manufactured the "liberal media" myth to give the conservative media (which does exist) a raison d'etre. He also makes the point (not original to him), among myriad others--coming, seemingly, at the speed of light, that a "war on terror" is impossible. That is, the word "terror" describes a phenomenon, which makes prosecuting a war on terror unlike fighting a war with England, Mexico, Spain, Germany or Japan--all nations with seats of government and conventional armies.
Actually, Alterman's point is not completely incompatible with the conservative complaint that "terrorism" is an unhelpful euphemism for "Islamofascism." Okie Gardener has argued that this "sloppy terminology relates to sloppy thinking: and we must be clear-headed" in this all-important appointment with destiny.
However, I am not nearly as disturbed by the imprecise terminology. As long as we know what we mean, we are fine. (Of course, whether we know what we mean is an entirely different question.) Notwithstanding, I have written privately, even if we don't call an Islamofascist an Islamofascist, their rotting corpses will smell just as putrid by any other name. But that assumes that we can kill all the terrorists, which is impractical (and not in keeping with the American personality). We are an evangelical and evangelistic people. We prefer to convert rather than eliminate. We generally have the stomach to strike out in anger against an offensive dictator or an "axis of evil," but, once our blood cools, we prefer to make peace with our enemies and convert them to our point of view. As a people, we have never demonstrated stamina for war or an ability to maintain a protracted vendetta against a malefactor.
How will we win the war on terror? By that I mean, how will we put out the fire in the Middle East that threatens American lives and interests? Perhaps the cruelest component of the President's War on Terror is that, ultimately, we must infect the world with the disease that is killing us, consumerism and indulgence and self absorption. Once the potential Islamofascists get a "whiff of the free markets" (a phrase our President was fond of using during the campaign of 2000), the erstwhile Islamic fundamentalists will be too busy paying off credit cards and watching MTV to kill us.
I still believe we can win the war on terror. It will be a long journey. As I have argued recently, Iraq must be pacified quickly (the clock on Iraq is running out). But the greater Middle East project is attainable in the same way that the Cold War was achievable, with a bipartisan concerted effort over a series of presidential administrations.
However, the President's initiative in the Middle East has always been a gamble. What if this does not work? What are our options?
Part II & III.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
This morning I heard ABC radio make two significant errors in their framing of the current Mideast war. First, the only casualities they mentioned were those of Lebanese civilians. True, Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli action. But, no mention was made of Israeli civilian casualties. And, more significantly, no mention was made that the reason for Lebanese civilian casualties is that Hezbollah (and Hamas in their areas) deliberately place themselves within civilian populations in order to impede Israeli retaliation. The moral onus should be on Hezbollah for civilian casualities. Second, the report concluded with the comment that the current warfare is a setback for the Bush Administration Middle Eastern policy. True, but wrong. The current fighting is a setback for us, the U.S. It is a setback for the Middle East. Bad framing of the situation on both counts.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Valerie Plame sues over leak. Captain's Quarters has a must read account of Joe Wilson's track record on truth. Read here. Having Plame and Wilson under oath could be fun.
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
Hard to believe that 50 years ago the Protestant establishment in the U.S. consisted of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, and (from a merger in the late 1950s) the United Church of Christ. Today those groups are diminished and sidelined. For a cogent and firmly-stated analysis of their decline see this oped by Charlotte Allen in the LA Times.
Her diagnosis: the Mainline Churches embraced liberalism and began to wither on the Vine. While she may give too little attention to factors such as low birthrates (which she mentions) and population shifts to the Sunbelt and metropolitan areas (which she does not mention), I think she has identified the major cancer that threatens these churches.
Her diagnosis: the Mainline Churches embraced liberalism and began to wither on the Vine. While she may give too little attention to factors such as low birthrates (which she mentions) and population shifts to the Sunbelt and metropolitan areas (which she does not mention), I think she has identified the major cancer that threatens these churches.
13/07: Alarming History
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I refuse to push the panic button on the economy, and I hate Vietnam parallels, but a growing chain of events gives me cause for concern.
The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.
We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.
You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).
But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.
The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.
We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.
You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).
But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.
Today Okie Gardener posted two oustanding pieces, "Small Government," which equates big government with hubris and original sin, and "The Mask is Off," which speaks to the latest installment of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East (I also encourage you to read the comments section for some cogent and provocative analysis and invite you to contribute to the discussion).
The two posts, ostensibly unconnected, actually speak to the two great dilemmas of our times, which are inextricably linked.
First, here is a more practical question: what happened to the party of small government? Ronald Reagan came to Washington convinced that people were basically good--but big government made them do bad things. For Reagan, and a generation of conservatives, government was the problem. The Bushies came to town seemingly convinced that big government would be just fine as long as it was in the hands of the right people. And, of course, that philosophy brings us back full-circle to FDR-LBJ-style liberalism, which began the whole conservative counter-revolution.
The Progressive Experiment has worked extremely well in the short term, but we will need to make some tough decisions in the coming years to save ourselves. Can we continue to live our lives of extraordinary luxury and excess without paying a price? The Progressive golden goose killed the republican wise ant. Now we are working the goose at maximum capacity. How long can we endure?
As I intimated, the Republicans are not much better than the Democrats in this regard. For a while I thought the Democrats were self-destructing, with their political correctness, America-bashing and defeatists default positions. But now I am not so sure. They are making a comeback as the only alternative to Republican flatulence. This election will be telling.
No matter, regardless of what happens in the next few election cycles, the Republicans show every sign of moral confusion. Lord Acton's maxim seems especially true with the Republican Party. God help us if they ever achieve supreme power.
I have previously praised the grand and healthy American tradition of "throwing" entrenched politicians out of office. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." Ruling cliques come and go. Fresh ideas and optimism constantly replenish good government, pushing out the generation gone stale. To that end, the ruling Republican majority is the perfect example of a party that entered with bright promise but now needs to go. Although I like many of the principals in the Republican coalition, the log-rolling, posturing, incontinent GOP-controlled Congress of 2006 is completely bereft of the spirit of 1994.
But wait, there is a problem. These are sober times. For all the infuriating shortcomings of the GOP, they are at least serious in facing the threat of the terrorists. We are in an unenviable position, to say the least, in which we are afraid to jettison the corpulent ruling party in fear that the opposition party has not the stomach for the dire times in which we live. For this particular development, perhaps even more than any of his other diabolical deeds, I hate Osama bin Laden. 9/11 so changed the calculus of American politics.
Madison assured us in "Federalist #10" that a far-flung republic could not only survive--but succeed. The far-flung, multi-media, micro-focused America of the twenty-first-century, threatened from without and decaying from within, will provide the ultimate test for that prediction. God Bless America. God save the Republic.
The two posts, ostensibly unconnected, actually speak to the two great dilemmas of our times, which are inextricably linked.
First, here is a more practical question: what happened to the party of small government? Ronald Reagan came to Washington convinced that people were basically good--but big government made them do bad things. For Reagan, and a generation of conservatives, government was the problem. The Bushies came to town seemingly convinced that big government would be just fine as long as it was in the hands of the right people. And, of course, that philosophy brings us back full-circle to FDR-LBJ-style liberalism, which began the whole conservative counter-revolution.
The Progressive Experiment has worked extremely well in the short term, but we will need to make some tough decisions in the coming years to save ourselves. Can we continue to live our lives of extraordinary luxury and excess without paying a price? The Progressive golden goose killed the republican wise ant. Now we are working the goose at maximum capacity. How long can we endure?
As I intimated, the Republicans are not much better than the Democrats in this regard. For a while I thought the Democrats were self-destructing, with their political correctness, America-bashing and defeatists default positions. But now I am not so sure. They are making a comeback as the only alternative to Republican flatulence. This election will be telling.
No matter, regardless of what happens in the next few election cycles, the Republicans show every sign of moral confusion. Lord Acton's maxim seems especially true with the Republican Party. God help us if they ever achieve supreme power.
I have previously praised the grand and healthy American tradition of "throwing" entrenched politicians out of office. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." Ruling cliques come and go. Fresh ideas and optimism constantly replenish good government, pushing out the generation gone stale. To that end, the ruling Republican majority is the perfect example of a party that entered with bright promise but now needs to go. Although I like many of the principals in the Republican coalition, the log-rolling, posturing, incontinent GOP-controlled Congress of 2006 is completely bereft of the spirit of 1994.
But wait, there is a problem. These are sober times. For all the infuriating shortcomings of the GOP, they are at least serious in facing the threat of the terrorists. We are in an unenviable position, to say the least, in which we are afraid to jettison the corpulent ruling party in fear that the opposition party has not the stomach for the dire times in which we live. For this particular development, perhaps even more than any of his other diabolical deeds, I hate Osama bin Laden. 9/11 so changed the calculus of American politics.
Madison assured us in "Federalist #10" that a far-flung republic could not only survive--but succeed. The far-flung, multi-media, micro-focused America of the twenty-first-century, threatened from without and decaying from within, will provide the ultimate test for that prediction. God Bless America. God save the Republic.
13/07: Small Government
Peggy Noonan has a great, thoughtful essay today (no surprise) on the impossible demands currently being made on the politicians in Congress to decide every sort of difficult issue, from international to local. In part at least, this barrage of complexity enables those who want bigger government to slip through increases in government size and responsibility. She points out that demanding a Congress full of Platos, Solomons and Socrates's is ridiculous. It is a great essay in favor of small government. Read it here.
One of the basic underlying ideas to her essay is that human beings have limits. We are finite. Asking finite beings for infinite wisdom will result in tragedy, or if we are lucky, farce. The ancient Greeks understood the nature of human limits: humans are between gods and animals. To act like a god, that is to act as though one had no limits, was called hubris. Engaging in hubris was understood to bring tragedy. Think of the myth of Icarus, the fellow whose father made wings to fly away and escape from imprisonment. Not heeding his father's warnings he flew too near the sun, the wax in his wings melted, and he plummeted to his death. He forget his limitations, tried to act like a god, and his end was destruction. In the words of a famous American philisopher--A man's got to know his limitations.
The liberal push for bigger and bigger government, controlling more and more of human life, is a recipe for tragedy. Humans cannot succeed at controlling everything. Especially not one elite governing group. In the Christian world-view, we have a similar idea to hubris--sin. Only God has the omni's: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. A state claiming omnicompetence is reaching for forbidden fruit, trying to attain the status of God. We know how that story ends.
This lesson is hard for Americans to learn. We like to think in terms of infinite possibilities. Some years ago Michael Crighton wrote a decent novel using the plot of Greek tragedy--Jurassic Park. In the novel the Theme Park creator tried to be a god by bringing extinct creatures back to living in the present. He was punished for his hubris, eaten by his creatures, after causing much suffering. In order to appeal to a popular American audience, when made into a movie the tragedy of hubris was removed, and a happy ending inserted. In real life we do not always get to rewrite.
One of the basic underlying ideas to her essay is that human beings have limits. We are finite. Asking finite beings for infinite wisdom will result in tragedy, or if we are lucky, farce. The ancient Greeks understood the nature of human limits: humans are between gods and animals. To act like a god, that is to act as though one had no limits, was called hubris. Engaging in hubris was understood to bring tragedy. Think of the myth of Icarus, the fellow whose father made wings to fly away and escape from imprisonment. Not heeding his father's warnings he flew too near the sun, the wax in his wings melted, and he plummeted to his death. He forget his limitations, tried to act like a god, and his end was destruction. In the words of a famous American philisopher--A man's got to know his limitations.
The liberal push for bigger and bigger government, controlling more and more of human life, is a recipe for tragedy. Humans cannot succeed at controlling everything. Especially not one elite governing group. In the Christian world-view, we have a similar idea to hubris--sin. Only God has the omni's: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. A state claiming omnicompetence is reaching for forbidden fruit, trying to attain the status of God. We know how that story ends.
This lesson is hard for Americans to learn. We like to think in terms of infinite possibilities. Some years ago Michael Crighton wrote a decent novel using the plot of Greek tragedy--Jurassic Park. In the novel the Theme Park creator tried to be a god by bringing extinct creatures back to living in the present. He was punished for his hubris, eaten by his creatures, after causing much suffering. In order to appeal to a popular American audience, when made into a movie the tragedy of hubris was removed, and a happy ending inserted. In real life we do not always get to rewrite.
12/07: The Mask Is Off
Israel has tried very hard recently to appease its enemies. It pulled out of Gaza and forcibly removed Jewish settlers there and in other places. In return Israel is now under increasingly heavy attack on two fronts: from Gaza and from Lebanon. For years many in the West have believed the Palestinian statements to the effect that 'give us back the land seized in 67 and we'll be at peace,' while ignoring their domestic propaganda calling for the utter destruction of Israel. Now the mask is off the Palestinian leadership, and a large segment of Palestinians themselves. They were given land and in return have given back war. Let's not have any more calls for Israel to show restraint. They have an enemy that cannot be appeased or reasoned with, only defeated.
12/07: Sam Walton is Dead
Yesterday I bought a box of shells at a Wal-Mart. When I got home and opened the box, one of the shells looked like it should have been rejected by quality control; out of curiosity I tried to fit it into the chamber but it would not fit in. I tried another shell into the chamber, and it went in, sort of, but did not feel just right. So this morning I took the box plus receipt back to the Wal-Mart to exchange or get my money back. No dice. The person at the firearms desk said their policy was to do no refunds or exchanges on shells. I then spoke to her manager. Same story. Even when I showed both of them the defective shell, their answer remained unchanged. Sam Walton is dead. I think that years ago Wal-Mart would have refunded my money, and taken up the issue with the manufacturer. Several times in the last 5 years I have sworn that I'll never set foot again in a Wal-Mart, and then like a battered spouse I go back. But I don't think so this time. For another opinion, see this post by Farmer.
