Forward
November 16, 2012
Wesley J. Smith
My funk on election night was deepened by an email from a younger, liberal friend. Conservatives lost, she told me sternly, because they have become badly “tarnished” with “Latinos, young people, Asians, single women,” and “all key demos for the next twenty years.” Her blunt warning: “Fix that or keep losing.”
I was initially angry. It seemed to me that these are the very people most hurt by the president’s economic policies, supposedly the key issue in the election. But resisting the impulse to reply bitterly, I instead pondered her words. Then the proverbial light bulb: The real issue for these crucial voters, I realized, wasn’t economic at all. It was cultural, perhaps something even more existential.
One widely circulated Obama campaign music video illuminates the subject. It depicts throngs of diverse supporters—young with old, white with people of color, men with women—leaving their daily activities to joyously march together to an uplifting rock anthem—Forward—accompanied by excerpts from an Obama speech assuring that we “leave no one behind.” Here are a few of the lyrics:
You can’t give up on hope
Each other’s hand we hold
We’re on a long hard road
But we travel it together
We pull each other up
We fill each other’s cup
So we all have enough
We’re all in this together
When I first saw the video, I sniffed, “Catchy tune, but really, do they think people are leaving restaurants, stores, and jobs to march together for Obama?” But I’d missed the point. Obama’s campaign—and indeed, his presidency—promotes a powerful and primordial message, best embodied in the national motto of France; liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Collectivism is always a potent message for those who feel a sense of oppression and/or economic strain. Thus, it was the very economic difficulties experienced by my friend’s touted demographic cohorts that made Obama’s message of inclusion and “fairness” resonate more deeply than did Mitt Romney’s free market/equality of opportunity/importance-of-the-individual arguments.
Of course, the dynamic tension between the relative importance of the individual and the group isn’t anything new. Indeed, Christianity has long faced similar tensions. I am certainly no theologian—and please forgive me for stating it very roughly and too generally—but it seems to me that Protestantism emphasizes individualism, e.g., the direct relationship between God and each person, sola scriptura, the downplaying of tradition, the excising of intercessory prayers to saints. Some take this much further, even believing that dogma can be altered because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing:” Me and my walk with Jesus, if you will, with prime worship focus placed on “the Word.”
Pre-Reformation churches, on the other hand—Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic—embrace a far more collective approach. Yes, salvation is individual, but it is also mediated through the Church as the Body of Christ, albeit in the service of each person as well as for the whole. This means accepting Apostolic Tradition to interpret Scripture, a belief in the intersession of the saints (Hebrews’ “invisible cloud of witnesses”), and the emphasis on Sacraments: We and our walk together with the Trinity, with prime worship focus placed on Holy Communion.
Whether in the secular or religious sphere, these differing emphases really matter to people, cultures, and societies. Indeed and alas, many wars have been waged over the tension between them. Thus, they bear continual pondering and unending mutual efforts by differing factions to understand and bear with the other.
As for me, I am a very strong proponent of individualism in the secular sphere. I believe in the Declaration of Independence as the best promoter of liberty, and in the Constitutional structure of limited government as its guarantor. I embrace equality of opportunity, not result, as the optimal approach to maximizing human flourishing and prosperity. And I reject the collectivist approach as potentially oppressive to the individual and ever threatening to unleash a dangerous Utopianism, undeniably an historic problem with the French model.
But in my faith, ironically, I have taken the other road, converting some years ago to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Some might see this as a paradox. To the contrary, the two are complimentary since each operates best in the context of free will. I am liberated coming and going. Political individualism allows me (and others) to embrace or reject religion, while my faith’s ultimate meaning only arises when it is willingly accepted.
Thus, in American Orthodoxy, I am both free and secure. Not bearing the burden of interpreting Scripture (because the Church has) liberates me to explore its meaning more deeply. Choosing to be a literal member of the organized Body of Christ offers love, acceptance, belonging, protection, and salvation. Knowing that I receive His Body and Blood, I am continually renewed and strengthened for the race. For, as St. Paul wrote: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”
Or to put it another way: In my politics, I am free and I do not oppress. And in my faith, I am not left behind. Forward.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. He also consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Forward, the song
Lyrics to Forward
Orthodox Study Bible (New King James) 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.16.2012 | 8:24am
Patrick says:
Gian: "What is objectionably collectivist here?"
There isn't much of a choice offered, is there? "We travel it together..." or else what? "We fill each other’s cup..." and if I'd rather not have my cup filled? There's certainly an element of the "nanny state" in suggesting the state must ensure (by force?) that "each other's hand we hold." And it's all just pretty schmaltzy, isn't it?
There isn't much of a choice offered, is there? "We travel it together..." or else what? "We fill each other’s cup..." and if I'd rather not have my cup filled? There's certainly an element of the "nanny state" in suggesting the state must ensure (by force?) that "each other's hand we hold." And it's all just pretty schmaltzy, isn't it?
11.16.2012 | 8:44am
Joe DeVet says:
Contra Gian, if I understand him, I would be careful about equating the teaching on solidarity with a mandate for it all to be mediated through the government. If we look closely, government-mediated "solidarity" sucks all the soul out of it. It often amounts to something like this, which is Obama's premise: "MY solidarity with YOU means I get the government to force HIM to part with the wealth he earned, and give it to YOU."
Real solidarity is an aspect of the primordial virtue of Charity--ultimately to love as God loves, which will save our souls. In the "surrogate charity" of government--wealth is forcibly extracted from the unwilling, skimmed by the unworthy, and the remains thrown at the ungrateful--no one's soul is saved.
Certainly the impulses of the song appeal to anyone with a modicum of charity in their hearts. But let us respond with true, and not false, charity.
Real solidarity is an aspect of the primordial virtue of Charity--ultimately to love as God loves, which will save our souls. In the "surrogate charity" of government--wealth is forcibly extracted from the unwilling, skimmed by the unworthy, and the remains thrown at the ungrateful--no one's soul is saved.
Certainly the impulses of the song appeal to anyone with a modicum of charity in their hearts. But let us respond with true, and not false, charity.
11.16.2012 | 9:10am
Joe Sansonese says:
"We pull each other up
We fill each other’s cup
So we all have enough
We’re all in this together"
What does this have to do with collectivism? What it has to do is that the "this" in your question, if it is not sappy sentiment without particular significance, is the government. It is the government that is pulling each of us up and filling our cups so that we all have enough. And any other institution that wants to get in on "This" may go knit.
The jingle should be pondered along with another slogan from the same people: "Government is he only thing we all belong to!"
Belong to????? We "belong" to the government? If you are not seriously alarmed by that sort of rhetoric, there is something deeply, deeply wrong with you. the future that Obama and the Democrats, for all the multicultural jabberwocky they spout, was sketched out for us not by Orwell in 1984, that future is so sinister that it was a caricature for Americans. No, earlier than that, Aldous Huxley wrote a few lines in "Brave New World," a tape-recorded message softly playing in a dormitory where 80 young children are sleeping:
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas."
Or how about:
"The Director pushed back the switch. The voice was silent. Only its thin ghost continued to mutter from beneath the eighty pillows.
'They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson.'
Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!'"
Also:
"Every one works for every one else."
And, with the aim of encouraging sexual promiscuity, how about:
"Every one belongs to every one else."
Finally:
"The World State's motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY."
A future like that is disturbingly close.
It is insane to pursue policies that cripple the actually existing family's ability to raise the next generation without let or hindrance from the government on behalf of a piece of collectivist fiction called the "human family."
If WE are the brothers and sisters in this "family," who, I ask, is the father? Who the mother? Where is home?
I repeat: It's insane. And applauding it in any way, shape, or form is dangerous.
We fill each other’s cup
So we all have enough
We’re all in this together"
What does this have to do with collectivism? What it has to do is that the "this" in your question, if it is not sappy sentiment without particular significance, is the government. It is the government that is pulling each of us up and filling our cups so that we all have enough. And any other institution that wants to get in on "This" may go knit.
The jingle should be pondered along with another slogan from the same people: "Government is he only thing we all belong to!"
Belong to????? We "belong" to the government? If you are not seriously alarmed by that sort of rhetoric, there is something deeply, deeply wrong with you. the future that Obama and the Democrats, for all the multicultural jabberwocky they spout, was sketched out for us not by Orwell in 1984, that future is so sinister that it was a caricature for Americans. No, earlier than that, Aldous Huxley wrote a few lines in "Brave New World," a tape-recorded message softly playing in a dormitory where 80 young children are sleeping:
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas."
Or how about:
"The Director pushed back the switch. The voice was silent. Only its thin ghost continued to mutter from beneath the eighty pillows.
'They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson.'
Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!'"
Also:
"Every one works for every one else."
And, with the aim of encouraging sexual promiscuity, how about:
"Every one belongs to every one else."
Finally:
"The World State's motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY."
A future like that is disturbingly close.
It is insane to pursue policies that cripple the actually existing family's ability to raise the next generation without let or hindrance from the government on behalf of a piece of collectivist fiction called the "human family."
If WE are the brothers and sisters in this "family," who, I ask, is the father? Who the mother? Where is home?
I repeat: It's insane. And applauding it in any way, shape, or form is dangerous.
11.16.2012 | 10:12am
John Hinshaw says:
The fact that it is sung in support of Barack Obama is objectionably collectivist. I could write pretty rhymes with nice sounds like: "togetherness", "eros", "closeness" or even "intimacy". "Till death do part", "couple living as one", "eternally yours" and many more noble sounding things and only when I tell you would you know it is in defense of wife-beating
11.16.2012 | 10:34am
Thomas Murray says:
Gian,
I agree with your points. It is only in the implementation of his policies that the collectivism is evident. One main difference between the French Revolution and our own is in the resultant philosophies.
Liberty (and equal opportunity) vs Equality (of outcomes)
Unfortunately, the only way to ensure equality of outcomes is to depress everyone to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Regarding the Church and scripture, there is recognition of the importance of the individual and their efforts:
"Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (Thes 3:6-10)
"Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one." (Thes 4:9-12)
And while other passages speak to the need to care for our families and neighbors, it has long been understood that we do that as inidividuals, not by having a government tell us who is going to be "helped" and forcing us to pay for it.
I agree with your points. It is only in the implementation of his policies that the collectivism is evident. One main difference between the French Revolution and our own is in the resultant philosophies.
Liberty (and equal opportunity) vs Equality (of outcomes)
Unfortunately, the only way to ensure equality of outcomes is to depress everyone to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Regarding the Church and scripture, there is recognition of the importance of the individual and their efforts:
"Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (Thes 3:6-10)
"Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one." (Thes 4:9-12)
And while other passages speak to the need to care for our families and neighbors, it has long been understood that we do that as inidividuals, not by having a government tell us who is going to be "helped" and forcing us to pay for it.
11.16.2012 | 10:53am
Northern Observer says:
liberté, égalité, fraternité
The French Revolutionary project was only possible because their traditionalist opponents were so venal, corrupt, indifferent and ineffective. In short morally unfit to lead the nation. Otherwise such overthrowing would never have gained currency in the lesser nobility, the urban (Paris) masses, and some sectors of the countryside.
Republican conservative partizans need to look at their party a little closer if they can not see how they were overcome by Obama.
The French Revolutionary project was only possible because their traditionalist opponents were so venal, corrupt, indifferent and ineffective. In short morally unfit to lead the nation. Otherwise such overthrowing would never have gained currency in the lesser nobility, the urban (Paris) masses, and some sectors of the countryside.
Republican conservative partizans need to look at their party a little closer if they can not see how they were overcome by Obama.
11.16.2012 | 12:21pm
Oliver says:
"Conservatives lost, she told me sternly, because they have become badly “tarnished” with “Latinos, young people, Asians, single women,” and “all key demos for the next twenty years.” "
Add African-Americans, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, environmentalists, scientists, and LGBTs. To understand your friend, Mr. Smith, one need only read the so-called Christian conservative blogs, which are mostly devoted to beating up on "less Christian" people, where "less Christian" is defined as "anyone who is not like me" ("me" being the author). How much less abrasive would Christian conservatives appear if they embraced love of neighbor and love of the world, rather than anger, judgmentalism, sneering, and bewailing the supposed evils around them. It is disheartening to see political views cloaked as "what is religiously correct". True, this is nothing new. Ideological groups always claim moral superiority, but the Christian right goes further than most when it comes to claiming to speak for God. They do not speak for God. When I have dipped into some of these blogs, I have always come away with a sense of sadness at the harshness and down-right mean spiritedness of these writings.
Bear in mind also that Mitt Romney specifically expressed contempt for the "47%" that are allegedly takers and not makers. He reinforced this belief by saying that Barack Obama won by promising "gifts" to minority groups. He tied these "minority groups" to his famous "47%".
It is not necessarily the needy that voted for the president (any more than it is not women, LGBTs, or racial minorities that are needy). Many wealthy and well-educated people did so too. The gap between rich and poor has been growing over the past 50 years, and it's time to restore the balance. There is no need, in a country as wealthy as our own, for anyone to live below the poverty line. We're hardly talking about communism or even socialism here. We're talking about unfettered capitalism that almost caused a major depression in 2008, and the recovery from that near disaster. We have some work to do to restore the middle class to the place of dignity it occupied during the fifties. There is also a sense in this country that the Christian right has disappointed. People are looking elsewhere for what is just, good, and true.
Add African-Americans, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, environmentalists, scientists, and LGBTs. To understand your friend, Mr. Smith, one need only read the so-called Christian conservative blogs, which are mostly devoted to beating up on "less Christian" people, where "less Christian" is defined as "anyone who is not like me" ("me" being the author). How much less abrasive would Christian conservatives appear if they embraced love of neighbor and love of the world, rather than anger, judgmentalism, sneering, and bewailing the supposed evils around them. It is disheartening to see political views cloaked as "what is religiously correct". True, this is nothing new. Ideological groups always claim moral superiority, but the Christian right goes further than most when it comes to claiming to speak for God. They do not speak for God. When I have dipped into some of these blogs, I have always come away with a sense of sadness at the harshness and down-right mean spiritedness of these writings.
Bear in mind also that Mitt Romney specifically expressed contempt for the "47%" that are allegedly takers and not makers. He reinforced this belief by saying that Barack Obama won by promising "gifts" to minority groups. He tied these "minority groups" to his famous "47%".
It is not necessarily the needy that voted for the president (any more than it is not women, LGBTs, or racial minorities that are needy). Many wealthy and well-educated people did so too. The gap between rich and poor has been growing over the past 50 years, and it's time to restore the balance. There is no need, in a country as wealthy as our own, for anyone to live below the poverty line. We're hardly talking about communism or even socialism here. We're talking about unfettered capitalism that almost caused a major depression in 2008, and the recovery from that near disaster. We have some work to do to restore the middle class to the place of dignity it occupied during the fifties. There is also a sense in this country that the Christian right has disappointed. People are looking elsewhere for what is just, good, and true.
11.16.2012 | 12:53pm
Monkeyville says:
Mr. Smith,
Catholicism has always upheld the "individuality" of each person. The problem has nothing to do with Protestantism being "individual" and Catholicism being "collective". There were many "Protestant" sects in history which were collective and practiced "communism."
With all due respect to your conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, I find it baffling that otherwise very intelligent people choose Eastern Orthodoxy, with all its historical baggage and stifled dogma, rather than the dynamic 'orthodox' Catholicism? Why?
With respect to the election — one of the main problems of democracy, or of human nature, has always been the mental laziness or the lack of attention span of the "mob", which will not want to rationally analyze the difficult problems, but rather tend to go after broad visions of demagogues, hoping the politician has figured out the details and will deliver the vision once elected. It is a lot easier and more convenient that way.
Catholicism has always upheld the "individuality" of each person. The problem has nothing to do with Protestantism being "individual" and Catholicism being "collective". There were many "Protestant" sects in history which were collective and practiced "communism."
With all due respect to your conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, I find it baffling that otherwise very intelligent people choose Eastern Orthodoxy, with all its historical baggage and stifled dogma, rather than the dynamic 'orthodox' Catholicism? Why?
With respect to the election — one of the main problems of democracy, or of human nature, has always been the mental laziness or the lack of attention span of the "mob", which will not want to rationally analyze the difficult problems, but rather tend to go after broad visions of demagogues, hoping the politician has figured out the details and will deliver the vision once elected. It is a lot easier and more convenient that way.
11.16.2012 | 1:22pm
Kahlib Fischer says:
Good thoughts. What's so interesting is that even in Reformed theology, there really isn't (or shouldn't be) an overt emphasis on individualism at the expense of solidarity. The Biblical notion of covenant is unique insofar as it emphasizes that individual rights are best protected in a mutually reaffirming covenant, where the members are accountable to one another and are commanded to not just carry out their duties to one another, but to carry out their duties as a conscious act of love. So the Biblical idea of covenant rejects both selfish individualism and the idolization of "tradition" and "the community" at the expense of the individual.
Moreover, _fedis_ being the Latin word for covenant, we can thank federal theology for serving as the bedrock for the American federal structure in which power is shared among the states and national government. Couple this with Kuyper's "sphere sovereignty" and I would ask if we aren't closer to offering a much more coherent rendition of "compassionate conservatism" than what has been offered by President Bush.
The problem with Obama is not his emphasis on solidarity, but rather that solidarity must come through government intervention. Kuyper's sphere sovereignty puts government as just one sphere that must have an active role in society--churches, non-profits, businesses, families, and yes, the individual all have a part to play in keeping society alive and well. But that takes a lot of work and its much easier to abdicate to government intervention, even if that intervention is ultimately inefficient and corrupt.
Moreover, _fedis_ being the Latin word for covenant, we can thank federal theology for serving as the bedrock for the American federal structure in which power is shared among the states and national government. Couple this with Kuyper's "sphere sovereignty" and I would ask if we aren't closer to offering a much more coherent rendition of "compassionate conservatism" than what has been offered by President Bush.
The problem with Obama is not his emphasis on solidarity, but rather that solidarity must come through government intervention. Kuyper's sphere sovereignty puts government as just one sphere that must have an active role in society--churches, non-profits, businesses, families, and yes, the individual all have a part to play in keeping society alive and well. But that takes a lot of work and its much easier to abdicate to government intervention, even if that intervention is ultimately inefficient and corrupt.
11.16.2012 | 1:53pm
mcasey says:
This article smartly, and perhaps inadvertently, gets at a major rift/problem conservatives are facing, one that might have cost the election. One cannot, I don't think, stress individualism in daily economic life while demanding collective discipline in matters religious. People today are shrewd enough to sense the basic contradiction to this logic, and Romney et al. didn't really address this bedrock contradiction. This gave many undecided voters a keen suspicion that something wasn't kosher with the Republican vision. Which is it, individual freedom or collective discipline? I don't think anyone will get far stressing both at once.
While I think all the paranoid talk about collectivism is over-the -top, I do think that Obama gets points for honesty by being open about bringing people together. His ideas may be disturbing for some folks, but his basic talk and vision are consistent. He does want Americans to work together, take care of each other and strive for a stronger middle class, even if it means taxing the wealthy more. It may be wrongheaded, but he didn't pull punches or try to say two different things at once. I think many undecided voters noticed this.
While I think all the paranoid talk about collectivism is over-the -top, I do think that Obama gets points for honesty by being open about bringing people together. His ideas may be disturbing for some folks, but his basic talk and vision are consistent. He does want Americans to work together, take care of each other and strive for a stronger middle class, even if it means taxing the wealthy more. It may be wrongheaded, but he didn't pull punches or try to say two different things at once. I think many undecided voters noticed this.
11.16.2012 | 4:16pm
Fr. J says:
I felt like a dinosaur. A bit like the last American. I don't recognize the land I grew up in. It isn't a matter of color and ethnicity, but the fact that the Democrats used those to divide and conquer. We are not united anymore. We hold no truths to be self-evident except getting free stuff, abortion is untouchable, and there are no rules of sexuality. We traded liberty for libertine.
11.17.2012 | 12:52am
Gian says:
Political Individualism can not work--a nation must have a dominant ethos that makes it A Nation and all those that do not share the dominant ethos are necessarily alienated from the nation and its political life.
Thus Soliadrity that makes a people a nation makes for a separation between citizens and strangers. So if you do not share the reigning ethos, you are relagated to being strangers and sojourners in the Nation and are alienated from true citizenship.
This dynamics may be seen in many conservative blogs today. They do not feel that they are fully Americans or that America has changed entirely.
Thus Soliadrity that makes a people a nation makes for a separation between citizens and strangers. So if you do not share the reigning ethos, you are relagated to being strangers and sojourners in the Nation and are alienated from true citizenship.
This dynamics may be seen in many conservative blogs today. They do not feel that they are fully Americans or that America has changed entirely.
11.17.2012 | 8:23am
Guest says:
There is a difference between stoking the fire of class envy and Catholic notions of solidarity. The former is fuelled by resentment while the latter by love. Don't mean to disparage Obama, but it seems to me he has taken class anger and warfare in America to heights not seen in a long time. From abroad it always seemed to me Americans were proud of their success stories, after the election it looks like one half just resents the other half. Sad.
PS If the great levelling should ever actually come to America, watch out! Economic patriotism of the kind some Dem politicians have called for has NEVER ended well, for anyone. Dangerous rhetoric.
PS If the great levelling should ever actually come to America, watch out! Economic patriotism of the kind some Dem politicians have called for has NEVER ended well, for anyone. Dangerous rhetoric.
11.17.2012 | 8:37pm
Gil says:
John Locke (Empiricism), Immanuel Kant (Age of Reason w/Reason as reigning idol, a god that would end in making a mockery of reason) and Auguste Comte (Positivism).
Enlightenment has won, but only for a time. President Obama is the first man in Enlightenment history who has world-class leadership style to carve the principles of Enlightenment into stone on a mountaintop that too will pass away. As a committed Catholic for the last 28 years, it continually amazed me how most bishops supported Enlightenment principles that were being practiced in opposition to the faith (and the further irony is that those principles were abstracted from the West's Judaic/Christian heritage for the sole purpose of elevating Man above and beyond God). To watch even many conservatives going over to Obama’s side without knowing it (for example, in supporting the destruction of the Nuptial Mystery, a major assault on the Church’s evangelical presence in the world).
All this, together with Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" tells the whole story.
Enlightenment has won, but only for a time. President Obama is the first man in Enlightenment history who has world-class leadership style to carve the principles of Enlightenment into stone on a mountaintop that too will pass away. As a committed Catholic for the last 28 years, it continually amazed me how most bishops supported Enlightenment principles that were being practiced in opposition to the faith (and the further irony is that those principles were abstracted from the West's Judaic/Christian heritage for the sole purpose of elevating Man above and beyond God). To watch even many conservatives going over to Obama’s side without knowing it (for example, in supporting the destruction of the Nuptial Mystery, a major assault on the Church’s evangelical presence in the world).
All this, together with Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" tells the whole story.
11.18.2012 | 3:18am
Rick says:
It's unfortunate that your liberal friend felt she had to gloat over the Democratic victory. Most unbecoming. But her point was connected to the much touted demographic changes that are, in fact, positioned to possibly make the Republican Party a relic of the age of unchallenged white, anglo-male domination. It isn't a matter of these other groups being impoverished, though. That's not the point at all. In many cases, they are doing better than white Anglos. It's a matter of tribalism. People tend to vote for those they think are most like themselves.
This conversation, though, has focused on the individualism-collectivism dichotomy. Your separation of philosophies between your secular and your religious lives is intriguing. You are a collectivist regarding you Orthodox faith, but an individualist regarding our national, secular life. Are you completely sure you are not trying to have your cake and eat it too? When early Christians joined the community, we are told in Acts, they were required to give all they had to the community, holding nothing back. All ownership was collective. They clearly had no ability to have a separate, secular economic life. Hence, the phenomenon of Christian cults that entirely separate the devotee from outside society.
Thomas Murray, above, tried to convince us of the importance of the individual in early Christianity by quoting Thessalonians: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Do you know where I heard that same idea expressed in almost the same exact words? From a Communist Party member on a project I worked with in the Soviet Union. Gennady was a high ranking Komsomol (communist youth organization) chief who was a member of our team doing reconstruction in Soviet Armenia after the devastating earthquake of 1988. At our frequent banquets with other Soviets, such as the Georgian construction team and us Americans, he was fond of punctuating toasts with the maxim, "He who does not work shall not eat!" Oddly, Gennady seemed to be the most notable exception to this rule. He was only 28, but prematurely paunchy, took an amazing number of rest breaks, and restricted his labor primarily to giving orders to the workers who actually built the houses. Watching him in action (or rather inaction), I couldn't help thinking of Animal Farm.
About the French, though. They are not simply a bunch of collectivists. I went to school in Paris, and the French, God bless them, can be the wildest bunch of eccentric individualists you ever saw! They make us look like docile conformists! Of course, I was in school there in 1976 when the students were coming close to overthrowing the government, and that may have colored my impressions.
This conversation, though, has focused on the individualism-collectivism dichotomy. Your separation of philosophies between your secular and your religious lives is intriguing. You are a collectivist regarding you Orthodox faith, but an individualist regarding our national, secular life. Are you completely sure you are not trying to have your cake and eat it too? When early Christians joined the community, we are told in Acts, they were required to give all they had to the community, holding nothing back. All ownership was collective. They clearly had no ability to have a separate, secular economic life. Hence, the phenomenon of Christian cults that entirely separate the devotee from outside society.
Thomas Murray, above, tried to convince us of the importance of the individual in early Christianity by quoting Thessalonians: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Do you know where I heard that same idea expressed in almost the same exact words? From a Communist Party member on a project I worked with in the Soviet Union. Gennady was a high ranking Komsomol (communist youth organization) chief who was a member of our team doing reconstruction in Soviet Armenia after the devastating earthquake of 1988. At our frequent banquets with other Soviets, such as the Georgian construction team and us Americans, he was fond of punctuating toasts with the maxim, "He who does not work shall not eat!" Oddly, Gennady seemed to be the most notable exception to this rule. He was only 28, but prematurely paunchy, took an amazing number of rest breaks, and restricted his labor primarily to giving orders to the workers who actually built the houses. Watching him in action (or rather inaction), I couldn't help thinking of Animal Farm.
About the French, though. They are not simply a bunch of collectivists. I went to school in Paris, and the French, God bless them, can be the wildest bunch of eccentric individualists you ever saw! They make us look like docile conformists! Of course, I was in school there in 1976 when the students were coming close to overthrowing the government, and that may have colored my impressions.
11.18.2012 | 9:15am
Peg says:
"[...] I do think that Obama gets points for honesty by being open about bringing people together [...] He does want Americans to work together, take care of each other and strive for a stronger middle class, even if it means taxing the wealthy more. It may be wrongheaded, but he didn't pull punches or try to say two different things at once. "
This must be how many of his supporters viewed him. This startles me, though, because I think Obama is markedly and deliberately divisive. His modus operandi is identity politics and--- now especially---class warfare. From where I sit in Non-progressive Land, this hardly lends itself to an image of a leader who wants Americans to work together or to take care of each other. I think he has driven us further apart. I thought he conducted his first term as President of Democrats and not of the rest of us Americans, and I saw nothing in his campaign to suggest any forthcoming change to that.
I want to be clear, mcasey, that I am not criticizing or disagreeing with your observation. I think you must have correctly noted the Obama voters' point of view, and it just struck me once again how divided we are as a nation.
This must be how many of his supporters viewed him. This startles me, though, because I think Obama is markedly and deliberately divisive. His modus operandi is identity politics and--- now especially---class warfare. From where I sit in Non-progressive Land, this hardly lends itself to an image of a leader who wants Americans to work together or to take care of each other. I think he has driven us further apart. I thought he conducted his first term as President of Democrats and not of the rest of us Americans, and I saw nothing in his campaign to suggest any forthcoming change to that.
I want to be clear, mcasey, that I am not criticizing or disagreeing with your observation. I think you must have correctly noted the Obama voters' point of view, and it just struck me once again how divided we are as a nation.
11.18.2012 | 5:37pm
Gil says:
I don't think Obama is intentionally divisive. He is just focused, and he truly believes that Humanity can be saved only by Enlightenment principles, that include abortion, redefining marriage, etc. I believe his view is straightforward: if you are in opposition to the Enlightenment in how it has manifested in fact, then you are an enemy of Humanity, and if you are an enemy of Humanity, you are necessarily an enemy of God. And that's understandable, for I believe the converse is true, that God comes first, not Humanity, and that if you place God first and what he demands of us, then you are for Humanity, and if you do not place God first you are opposed to humanity (revealed in abortion). That's the great divide, folks. Obama sees himself as putting Humanity first, and that that is the ultimate expression of embracing any god that you choose, for, after all, every god is a projection of what we determine is the greater good, and the only god that we can embrace in the Age of Enlightenment is what puts Humanity first.
11.19.2012 | 6:43am
Gian says:
All and any discussion of Individualism and Collectivism without bringing in the concepts of Solidarity and subsidiarity is incomplete and mischievous.
The twin Catholic principles mediate between the extremes of Individualism and Collectivism in the most rational way.
The twin Catholic principles mediate between the extremes of Individualism and Collectivism in the most rational way.
11.19.2012 | 11:25am
Henry says:
At a highscool football game this Saturday I looked down at the large diverse crowd and thought. Obama won the election because most of the folks have either forgotten or never heard of John Paul 11's words, "be not afraid". You sir should have reminded the young liberal lady of them. Those that look toward big brother large government do so out of fear.
11.19.2012 | 12:16pm
mcasey says:
"He (Obama) is just focused, and he truly believes that Humanity can be saved only by Enlightenment principles, that include abortion, redefining marriage, etc."
I would agree but for two points:
1. I doubt Obama or anyone in politics is worried about "saving" humanity as a whole so much as improving the lot of the less fortunate and, though that, the more fortunate. Saving is for God to do, or not, as the case may be. But he and most people do hew to Enlightenment principles, as they tend to be based on scientific method (observation) which is more solid, politically, that random belief systems.
2. Many on the left and center (including Obama, I think) increasingly believe abortion is a bad thing. I suspect that if the right (or religions in general) focused on ending abortion without linking this serious issue with non-issues like gay marriage (yawn), abortion could be greatly reduced. By linking something that deserves moral outrage (abortion) with things like gay marriage, which truly doesn't seem to hurt anybody, the right is in fact making the situation worse because such coupling makes the prolife argument seem as silly and bigoted as the gay marriage one, which it certainly is not.
Just a suggestion...
I would agree but for two points:
1. I doubt Obama or anyone in politics is worried about "saving" humanity as a whole so much as improving the lot of the less fortunate and, though that, the more fortunate. Saving is for God to do, or not, as the case may be. But he and most people do hew to Enlightenment principles, as they tend to be based on scientific method (observation) which is more solid, politically, that random belief systems.
2. Many on the left and center (including Obama, I think) increasingly believe abortion is a bad thing. I suspect that if the right (or religions in general) focused on ending abortion without linking this serious issue with non-issues like gay marriage (yawn), abortion could be greatly reduced. By linking something that deserves moral outrage (abortion) with things like gay marriage, which truly doesn't seem to hurt anybody, the right is in fact making the situation worse because such coupling makes the prolife argument seem as silly and bigoted as the gay marriage one, which it certainly is not.
Just a suggestion...
11.20.2012 | 2:46pm
A. Bailey says:
Initially I thought measey's comment was a bit vacuous, but now I think he's on to something. The goal of reducing abortion indeed can be advanced by promoting, even celebrating homosexuality. After all, it's not likely those unions will generate unwanted pregnancies or something.
For the author does not provide any argument to the effect that all those that oppose American Individualism are collectivists. He does not even define Individualism.
This song
"You can’t give up on hope
Each other’s hand we hold
We’re on a long hard road
But we travel it together
We pull each other up
We fill each other’s cup
So we all have enough
We’re all in this together"
What is objectionably collectivist here?