October 20, 2004
PRAISE THE STATE AND PASS A RESOLUTION
While we’re at it (Richard John Neuhaus, First Things, September, 2004)
Many, many years ago I wrote In Defense of People (1971), the first book-length critique of environmental extremism. It was provoked, in significant part, by Paul Ehrlich, he of the “population bomb,” who predicted in 1968: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” In subsequent books, Ehrlich predicted that by the 1980s “mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity” in which “accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” In fact, the world’s food supply has tripled and key minerals are available in greater abundance than ever. Reviewing Ehrlich’s latest book, One with Nineveh, Ronald Bailey writes, “Naturally, Mr. Ehrlich has won a MacArthur Foundation genius award and a Heinz Award for the environment.” (Teresa Heinz Kerry, chairman.) “So why pay him any notice?” asks Bailey. In Greek mythology “the prophetess Cassandra makes true predictions and no one believes her; Mr. Ehrlich makes false predictions and they are widely believed. The gloomier he is and the faultier he proves to be as a prophet, the more honored he becomes, even in his own country.” That puts it very nicely. What provoked me about Ehrlich, and also suggested the title of my book, is that he sees people, and especially poor people, as the enemy. Way back when Jesse Jackson was pro-life, he spoke about LBJ’s war on poverty being replaced by a war on poor people. Paul Ehrlich was and is among the chief propagandists for that war. The chilling thing is that he and those who lionize him seem to want his predictions to come true. It is a disposition that is at the heart of the darkness of what is aptly called the culture of death.
Whereas a hundred years ago, progressives were motivated by a Judeo-Christian-inspired belief in human progress and improvement, especially in the lives of the poor, their descendants preach a pagan-like creed that scorns practical efforts to solve real problems. Instead, they focus on wild doomsday scenarios and circling the wagons to stave off disaster. The funny thing is that many of them have developed a kind of “Stockholm Syndrome” attraction to the very disasters they profess to fear. Nothing so unsettles (and enrages) the modern left than good news. If world poverty and hunger were decreasing, increasing populations were fed, the seas were not rising, AIDS could be prevented, terrorism were defeated and democracy took hold in the Middle East, they would be shattered. That is why they do all they can to ensure NGO’s and bodies like the UN never really get serious about these matters and why they scorn those, like the current U.S. Administration, who do.
Posted by Peter Burnet at October 20, 2004 07:13 AMProgressives view the problems of the
poor as one of a "false consciousness".
In other words they look down on the wants
and likes of the common folk as constrained choices. NASCAR is phenomenally popular amongst the lower classes just as "hip-hop" is. Pretending that these people would be happier walking through MOMA, driving a hybrid car or living in smart growth housing is a waste of time.
J.H.,
Yes, by its very nature, progressism necessarally makes a judgement about right/wrong and good/bad and champions change from one state (point) to another. The left has championed the egalitarian state, the right a God filled moral life, different ends, same means.
Most people do things (act) in their own self interest. Self interest coupled with progressivism has given rise to the phenomenom of things being bad really are good for liberals because progress never stops and neither does looking out for one's own self interest, hence you need that next bad thing to keep the process going. Big (macro) bad events are therefore great to Liberals. War, social upheaval, desiese, injustice, etc...all work to provide jon security, just keep them coming is the mantra.
And what does the religious right need to keep their progress moving? (That is, from a political perspective, I don't mean praying). Well, since the goal of a God filled moral life ultimately leading to eternal salvation is a little obtuse, big bad macro events are just that, bad. After all if you could fix them like liberals try to do, you wouldn't need God. So what does the rlegious right need? They need bad (micro) events namely collapse of the indivual. These take the form of drug addiction, broken families, personal tragedy, loneliness, life of crime, etc... fuel progress for the right in the form of a ready supply of bodies to bring into the coalition.
J.H.,
Yes, by its very nature, progressism necessarally makes a judgement about right/wrong and good/bad and champions change from one state (point) to another. The left has championed the egalitarian state, the right a God filled moral life, different ends, same means.
Most people do things (act) in their own self interest. Self interest coupled with progressivism has given rise to the phenomenom of things being bad really are good for liberals because progress never stops and neither does looking out for one's own self interest, hence you need that next bad thing to keep the process going. Big (macro) bad events are therefore great to Liberals. War, social upheaval, desiese, injustice, etc...all work to provide jon security, just keep them coming is the mantra.
And what does the religious right need to keep their progress moving? (That is, from a political perspective, I don't mean praying). Well, since the goal of a God filled moral life ultimately leading to eternal salvation is a little obtuse, big bad macro events are just that, bad. After all if you could fix them like liberals try to do, you wouldn't need God. So what does the rlegious right need? They need bad (micro) events namely collapse of the indivual. These take the form of drug addiction, broken families, personal tragedy, loneliness, life of crime, etc... fuel progress for the right in the form of a ready supply of bodies to bring into the coalition.
J.H.,
Yes, by its very nature, progressivism necessarily makes a judgment about right/wrong and good/bad and champions change from one state (point) to another. The left has championed the egalitarian state, the right a God filled moral life, different ends, same means.
Most people do things (act) in their own self interest. Self interest coupled with progressivism has given rise to the phenomenon of things being bad really are good for liberals because progress never stops and neither does looking out for one's own self interest, hence you need that next bad thing to keep the process going. Big (macro) bad events are therefore great to Liberals. War, social upheaval, disease, injustice, etc...all work to provide job security, just keep them coming is the mantra.
And what does the religious right need to keep their progress moving? (That is, from a political perspective, I don't mean praying). Well, since the goal of a God filled moral life ultimately leading to eternal salvation is a little obtuse, big bad macro events are just that, bad. After all if you could fix them like liberals try to do, you wouldn't need God. So what does the religious right need? They need bad (micro) events namely collapse of the individual. These take the form of drug addiction, broken families, personal tragedy, loneliness, life of crime, etc... fuel progress for the right in the form of a ready supply of bodies to bring into the coalition.
Liberals need big bad events (not necessarily natural) to justify their theft of mankind's bounty. The politically religious need broken bodies, minds, and hearts to get them to heaven. I want a government that stops manufacturing both of these things. It will be interesting to see if the Republican party is co-opted by the Theo cons, or returns to the ideals of Goldwater and Reagan and champions the strength of the individual again.
You guys can spell, I can't even edit :-)
Posted by: Perry at October 20, 2004 10:32 AMI once read a quote from a Leftish lady who claimed that poverty in third world countries is character building. Not for her, of course, but for them.
So she was against ugly, character diminishing capitalism as it might feed some of those poor but quaint characters.
Posted by: NKR at October 20, 2004 10:39 AM