Good, Evil, and the Illegitimate Faith of Liberals
Published by BG on Sunday, June 10, 2007 at 1:46 PM.Earlier this week, I mentioned an article at the Politico that took the skeptical view of last week's faith forum for the top three Democratic candidates.
Four days later, the Politico is at it again, spinning another piece skeptical of Democrats who talk about faith. This one is fairly formulaic in its construction, with the setup starting with three experts from the religious right offering criticism, then two Democratic operatives (including the leader of the forum) quoted to seemingly reinforce the criticism, accepting the Republican framework of the argument (i.e., Democrats aren't people of faith, don't trust them, don't represent their values).
The part of the article that really irked me was contained within the final four paragraphs. It's an instructive look at how religion has been entirely co-opted by the right, and how they have distilled the thought process for complicated decisions down to a binary in order to sell the righteousness of their actions to America:
Note how they reinforce their point about the illegitimacy of Obama's idea by using a "Democratic operative" who's willing to call Obama's idea less than honest.
Less than honest? How is it less than honest to state that when we're actively beating the war drums, that perhaps we should critically examine going to war in something other than binary terms before we send American kids off to die? Obama is saying that this administration is branding our enemies as evil, our country as an ultimate arbiter of good, and pushing ideas like domestic surveillance, expanded Article II powers, torture and the elimination of habeus corpus with the sales pitch that good must defeat evil.
The world is more complex than good and evil. This isn't about "blaming America," it's about understanding what America stands for, what makes us a more moral society, and refusing to dismantle the morality that has been shaped over two centuries in this country because our leader and his salesmen want us to believe we're existentially threatened.
America is not wholly pure and good. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not wholly impure and evil. The good/evil binary, however, is actively marketed as a means of short-circuiting critical thought about our government's actions. Obama gets that (as I think a lot of politicians do - he's just the one quoted here), and I believe that a church-going person of faith such as he also gets that Christians can be encouraged to be people of understanding and compassion. People who can recognize evil, but also understand that a significant part of confronting this specific evil is not giving up the idea of America under the illusion of safety.
That the Republicans don't trust people of faith to understand the complexities of our relationships with North Korea, Iran and Syria, and are propagating this good/evil binary to garner support for the indiscriminate hammer swinging we call foreign policy is telling. The marketing people on the right don't want people to start to question the appropriation of power and the reductions of freedoms inherent with this administration's marketing of a non-existential threat. If questions are asked, it's far more difficult to appropriate that power for your own purposes.
We're an arrogant nation when questioning our motives and righteousness is said to be an emboldening force for evil. Those that beat the war drums want perpetual war, and wish upon your family the everlasting spectre of fear and death, because under this fear they rob you of your willingness to ask questions. They want your fealty to their expansion of power, period. Questioning that the US is pure and good is "liberal." Questioning why we torture and why the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" is liberal. Since we can't trust these liberals when they lie to you about their faith in god, can we trust the liberals when they question American righteousness?
I found the following passage from Edmund Burke quoted at Hullaballo yesterday. I thought it apt while discussing those that use lies and illegitimate assumptions to beat our war drums with reckless abandon:
Four days later, the Politico is at it again, spinning another piece skeptical of Democrats who talk about faith. This one is fairly formulaic in its construction, with the setup starting with three experts from the religious right offering criticism, then two Democratic operatives (including the leader of the forum) quoted to seemingly reinforce the criticism, accepting the Republican framework of the argument (i.e., Democrats aren't people of faith, don't trust them, don't represent their values).
The part of the article that really irked me was contained within the final four paragraphs. It's an instructive look at how religion has been entirely co-opted by the right, and how they have distilled the thought process for complicated decisions down to a binary in order to sell the righteousness of their actions to America:
But the event also served as a reminder that Democrats still do not speak about faith the same way Republicans do.
Obama spoke in nearly evangelical terms when he said, “I do think there’s evil in the world,” in reference to the Sept. 11 attacks.
But he reverted to more typical liberal language in the next breath, warning that “the danger of using good versus evil in the context of war is it may lead us to be not as critical as we should be about our own actions.”
Vanderslice, the former Kerry adviser, felt Obama’s original comment would resonate more strongly with Americans than the qualification that followed it – and said it was how Democrats needed to talk. “We should now be talking about evil. There is evil in the world. Most people believe it,” she said. “I’d like to see our candidate be that blunt and honest.”
Note how they reinforce their point about the illegitimacy of Obama's idea by using a "Democratic operative" who's willing to call Obama's idea less than honest.
Less than honest? How is it less than honest to state that when we're actively beating the war drums, that perhaps we should critically examine going to war in something other than binary terms before we send American kids off to die? Obama is saying that this administration is branding our enemies as evil, our country as an ultimate arbiter of good, and pushing ideas like domestic surveillance, expanded Article II powers, torture and the elimination of habeus corpus with the sales pitch that good must defeat evil.
The world is more complex than good and evil. This isn't about "blaming America," it's about understanding what America stands for, what makes us a more moral society, and refusing to dismantle the morality that has been shaped over two centuries in this country because our leader and his salesmen want us to believe we're existentially threatened.
America is not wholly pure and good. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not wholly impure and evil. The good/evil binary, however, is actively marketed as a means of short-circuiting critical thought about our government's actions. Obama gets that (as I think a lot of politicians do - he's just the one quoted here), and I believe that a church-going person of faith such as he also gets that Christians can be encouraged to be people of understanding and compassion. People who can recognize evil, but also understand that a significant part of confronting this specific evil is not giving up the idea of America under the illusion of safety.
That the Republicans don't trust people of faith to understand the complexities of our relationships with North Korea, Iran and Syria, and are propagating this good/evil binary to garner support for the indiscriminate hammer swinging we call foreign policy is telling. The marketing people on the right don't want people to start to question the appropriation of power and the reductions of freedoms inherent with this administration's marketing of a non-existential threat. If questions are asked, it's far more difficult to appropriate that power for your own purposes.
We're an arrogant nation when questioning our motives and righteousness is said to be an emboldening force for evil. Those that beat the war drums want perpetual war, and wish upon your family the everlasting spectre of fear and death, because under this fear they rob you of your willingness to ask questions. They want your fealty to their expansion of power, period. Questioning that the US is pure and good is "liberal." Questioning why we torture and why the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" is liberal. Since we can't trust these liberals when they lie to you about their faith in god, can we trust the liberals when they question American righteousness?
I found the following passage from Edmund Burke quoted at Hullaballo yesterday. I thought it apt while discussing those that use lies and illegitimate assumptions to beat our war drums with reckless abandon:
The poorest being that crawls on earth, contending to save itself from injustice and oppression, is an object respectable in the eyes of God and man. But I cannot conceive any existence under heaven (which in the depths of its wisdom tolerates all sorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting than an impotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles which he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can never exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order to render others contemptible and wretched.
Powered by ScribeFire.
