What’s Wrong with the World

This Brit isn't telling Americans how to think about politics (hasn't worked out to well for us in the past!)

However, I do have an interesting link to a Brit reflecting on Americans telling us how to do politics!

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/on-getting-involved-in-politics_15.html

If that article is what Alan Roebuck considers to be persuasion, he's really got a lot of work ahead of him.

Actually, I think it would make sense if theists of any political stripe did say that their belief in God is partially irrational. For starters, it would fit the real world situation better, where it looks like each culture and subculture has its own unique and historically explainable variations on the concept of god(s). Second, it is a human intuition that a large majority of people share, even if they can't define it - which means that it would serve as an intuition pump for one of the main objectives of pro-life conservatives, which is that the definition of a person as a rational animal is not sufficient.

Hmmm, well, I didn't exactly get the impression that he (Helm, in that link) was talking specifically about Americans telling Brits how to do politics. I got the impression he was deploring _anybody_ telling _anybody_ _anything_ about how the church should be related to politics, because there just shouldn't be a single Christian view of any of it. Interestingly, while he goes down through a list (including "law and order," "prosperity," and "the family") and tells us that the Bible doesn't have a single view of most of these, he kind of, um, skipped the family. There I'd certainly disagree, as would Roebuck (the author of the piece I link). And perhaps Helm sensed he was on shakier ground there and hence veered off. There definitely is a Christian view of the family, and a lot of contemporary left-wing political policies are attacking it full-bore. And this is relevant on both sides of the Atlantic, at least so it has seemed to me.

Step2, I would be lying if I said that belief in God is irrational. At least, my belief in God. Your advice seems to me like very bad advice. The connection to pro-life views is exceedingly shaky, in any event. Nobody said that anybody who doesn't believe in God rationally is a non-person, so what does that have to do with the matter? Yep, I can just see it: "See, belief in God is irrational, and we pro-lifers think that babies who can't reason at all are persons, and can't you kinda sorta see how this all fits together? Rationality ain't everything, you know! I'm irrational, the unborn baby is irrational, we're all irrational, and we're all persons together. Isn't that nice?" No, thanks.

To emphasize, again, my previous comment concerned someone named Helm, the author of the blog post that Graham linked to, not Alan Roebuck! Helm does, I should also clarify, _assert_ that there is no clear Christian view of the family (he uses the word "even" in that context), which is in my opinion manifestly false, but he doesn't push on it in the succeeding paragraphs, as he does with other things.

Step2, I would be lying if I said that belief in God is irrational. At least, my belief in God.

I only said partially. Would you be lying if you claimed the Christian faith of anybody else is entirely rational?

"See, belief in God is irrational, and we pro-lifers think that babies who can't reason at all are persons, and can't you kinda sorta see how this all fits together? Rationality ain't everything, you know! I'm irrational, the unborn baby is irrational, we're all irrational, and we're all persons together. Isn't that nice?"

Sort of. It would be more like - "Belief in God is partially irrational and it causes an incomparable feeling of purpose and awe, fetuses are irrational and they could experience similar feelings, ergo they are like persons."

"Winning by force is impossible now: the enemy currently has all the formal power. And even to use force, we must first use persuasion to assemble the army that will exert the force. At the most basic level there can be only one plan: persuasion."

If I missed the part where he says force would be wrong and sort of contrary to what America is supposed to be about as opposed to just saying force is impractical, someone feel free to help me out.

He obviously believes in a vanguard that leads the masses:

"Culture is based on the beliefs of individuals, but it is ultimately controlled by society's leaders (intellectual, spiritual and governmental), who determine the beliefs of most people by the ideas that they teach to be true. Individual persuasion is never enough. We must also create a conservative leadership class, which will lead to an explicitly conservative social order."

and Alan writes,

"Most people instinctively think that "attempting to change the culture" means voting and lobbying government. While these are important, they are not decisive."

Then he writes,

"As my previous essay points out, we need to defeat the rule of liberalism by publicly defeating its fundamental ideas and by placing those who reject liberalism in positions of leadership."

What is this unelected leadership? Since this vanguard is unelected, how did they get where they are and for that matter, where is the where?

"When people are facing persecution for their conservatism..."

Really? I do have a mountain lion in the back; is that liony enough for some persecuting.

Lydia, you don't strike me as a Trotskyite, please tell us this was for laughs.

I haven't had time to read the Roebuck article, but I can surely vouch for yours. Maybe the best I've ever read on the subject.

Which is why we can count on Al avoiding all serious contact with said outstanding essay by Lydia.

I have no idea why Al assumes that the "positions of leadership" Roebuck refers to are unelected, especially in some invidious sense. I would assume that he's including both ordinary elected political positions and also positions for which one is hired or appointed, such as positions writing, teaching, etc.--you know, the sorts of positions that liberals presently dominate in our society.

What is this unelected leadership? Since this vanguard is unelected, how did they get where they are and for that matter, where is the where?

Well, gee, I thought that was kind of obvious: mainstream media, for example. Hollywood movie-house executives, producers and directors, for another. College faculty. (Tony's 1st Theorem: (statistically speaking) the degree to which a person's liberal mind-set imbibed in college remains complete and functional correlates to the degree to which he remains in a closed or semi-closed institutionally liberal setting. The obverse theorem is: the degree to which one loses his liberal mind-set is the degree to which he gets out into the real world. Corollary: university professors are more functionally liberal than any other subset, because they STAY in the university sub-culture.)

So Al accuses me of being a Trotskyite: crypto, quasi, or regular. And that’s because I said

"…society's leaders (intellectual, spiritual and governmental)… determine the beliefs of most people…"

And

"…we need to defeat the rule of liberalism by publicly defeating its fundamental ideas and by placing those who reject liberalism in positions of leadership."

That’s not Trotskyism; that’s the way the world operates. Nobody lives by a system of beliefs he created himself; people at most choose which system created by others they will follow. Consider a typical scenario: A young person endorses the liberal worldview of his parents, teachers, pastor, the media, and so on. He believes it because the authorities he trusts tell him (usually without using the word) that liberalism is true. Then he matures, sees that liberalism is hooey, and endorses another system that he did not create, such as Catholicism, Lutheranism, Orthodox Judaism, Austrian-school libertarianism, etc…

And why is it that most Americans at least go along with the ruling liberal system? Did two hundred million Americans spontaneously and independently change their minds about their most basic beliefs? Obviously not. Prior to the Sixties, most American authorities taught that Christianity and its attendant social system were true, at least broadly. And most people went along with what the authorities taught, as most people always do. Now the authorities teach that (real) Christianity is false, and that liberalism is true. And therefore John Q. Public believes that God is unknowable, that Thou Shalt Not Discriminate, and so on.

This being the case, those who are serious about opposing liberalism ought to understand what it will take. What I’ve described is not Trotskyism. It’s reality.

Golly, life is like a Woody Allen film.

"And why is it that most Americans at least go along with the ruling liberal system?"

After 1980, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2010?

Alan, I interpreted your statements in the context of the article as a whole. As the most recent high point of American liberalism was the mid 1960s, it is hard to make any sense of your views on present day liberalism outside of a rigid and authoritarian ideological frame on your part. In my opinion, your implied willingness to employ violence is the lens through which the rest of your article must be viewed. All you have done is state your willingness to employ popular fronts as a tactic until you can do more.

Lydia, your article is quite interesting and I really can't find much to disagree with (I accept Paul's chastisement). You probably should have featured it instead of Alan's, which would skirt sedition were it not so ridiculously wrong on fact and analysis.

"1)...two key propositions at the heart of contemporary liberalism, 1) God is unknowable, and 2) The greatest commandment is that thou shalt not discriminate."

This, of course, is nonsense. As Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and MLK often invoked God and religion in their arguments and I've never encountered an objection from the left, I'm somewhat at a loss here. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that God is welcome (we lefties do take the First Amendment seriously) but not automatically dispositive (might I point out that with generally liberal supported categories like conscientious objectors, God is dispositive.

One might be excused for making the second statement if one had spent too much time with the lefty wienies who seem to gravitate to certain sections of academia, but that would only but that would only indict one for lack of thoroughness and imagination.

Number two is merely special pleading. Categories of prohibited discrimination have dared to tread on ones toes, nothing more.

What does al want in American government and society that doesn't already exist?

"I didn't exactly get the impression that he (Helm, in that link) was talking specifically about Americans telling Brits how to do politics."

Sorry, Lydia, my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

And I agree that there are certain "non-negotiables" for Christians in politics. Pro-choice policies, acceptance of sexual libertarianism and freedom of expression are all out.

On Helm's view on Family issues, I can only assume from the following posts that he'd agree (you may have covered some of these stories; if not, they make interesting reading):

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/09/strange-things-happen-in-court-of-law.html

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/08/mp-for-banbury.html

I'm not sure why he didn't mention "Family" and "Life" issues in his post, but I can guess. There are no electable political parties that we would recognise as pro-life or pro-family in England and Wales. (Individuals in all the electable parties who swim against the tide - inevitably their careers stall.) The parties do differ on the other issues that Helm mentions.

And by electable, I only mean being able to elect one candidate to Westminster. The last great pro-life, pro-family politician in the UK was David Alton, a member of the (genuinely) left-of-centre Liberal Democrats.
He attempted to start a Movement for Christian Democracy which stuttered and failed.

An interesting story. Ruth Kelly was a very able minister in both Blair and Browns Labour cabinets. She is a member of Opus Dei. She had absented herself from votes on such issues as equalisation of the age of consent, and gay adoption, and had voted for a motion that would prevent same-sex couples from adoption. As minister for for Women and Equality, however, she pursued a "naked public square" policy, and refused to publicly state her opinions on homosexuality. She insisted that she would carry out her duties like any other minister.

The result - the press and opposition parties hounded and persecuted Kelly for her private beliefs. Secularists will not even allow "thought crime". Kelly's case shows us that even on a practical level, the naked public square is not a viable strategy for Christians.

Graham

Kelly's voting record. She clearly did not believe in letting her private beliefs dictate how she voted:

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1433&dmp=826

And the secularists still attacked!

Al,

I’m obviously not implying violence, and only dishonesty (or projection) would lead you to say so. Or perhaps you cannot conceive of a society where the vast majority voluntarily assents to basic religious beliefs about how reality, including human society, operates. Leftists are so used to ruling by coercion that they cannot even conceive of another way. And you’re probably angry that someone disagrees with your leftism at its root and wants to oppose it effectively, instead of only pretending to oppose it, as most of the conservative movement does.

As to my two propositions of liberalism “1) God is unknowable, and 2) The greatest commandment is that thou shalt not discriminate," they are obviously correct descriptions of libralism. I am speaking of 2001, not the time of MLK or Lincoln, and we see that many leftists will speak of God, but they never believe in the real existence an actual Supreme Being who has given us an understandable Revelation. God talk is for them just a useful way to disarm sentimental conservatives. And as for discrimination, it’s obvious that even discriminating against Moslems who wish to kill or enslave us is totally unacceptable even most so-called conservatives. Antidiscrimination is obviously the ruling moral principle of modernity.

One more thing: One reason many people fail to see that these principles are authoritative is that, since the principles are inhuman and intolerable, the liberal authorities must occasionally tolerate “unprincipled exceptions” (in the formulation of Lawrence Auster.) People just feel in their bones that some liberal ruling “goes too far,” and the authorities allow them to vent a little steam by expressing a small dose of non-liberalism.

You might say “So these principles are true except for the exceptions, which prove they don’t rule.” But the point is that all exceptions must be unprincipled. Nobody is allowed to challenge these principles as principles: People who argue that the God of the Bible really exists are officially labeled bigots or fundamentalists, and their doctrine is officially allowed only in private. And nobody is allowed to argue that discrimination against definable people groups is sometimes necessary; those who disagree are again labeled bigots and are denied any legitimacy. Of course disagreement with these two principles exists. But disagreement is always officially regarded as illegitimate and contemptible. Just because liberalism has not stamped out all opposition does not mean that liberalism does not rule.

I am speaking of 2001, not the time of MLK or Lincoln, and we see that many leftists will speak of God, but they never believe in the real existence an actual Supreme Being who has given us an understandable Revelation.

Honestly, why would you need apologetics if you think the Bible is so understandable? The whole carrot (eternal reward) and stick (God's wrath) is so Pavlovian.

At least learn how to do the training if you are going to attempt conditioning.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ian_dunbar_on_dog_friendly_dog_training.html

Now I think I know why Al thinks I’m advocating violence. It’s because my essay says “Winning by force is impossible now…” I therefore withdraw my accusation of dishonesty.

But Al still misunderstands. Force does not mean violence. It means, in this context, any exertion that creates or maintains a social order, be it teaching students or broadcasting public service announcements or passing unpopular laws or collecting taxes or punishing criminals. The current liberal rulers of America use force naturally, and he undoubted thinks it proper when the government cracks down on those who discriminate or pollute too blatantly. After all, every government must rule by a combination of persuasion and force, because any order must have the means to maintain its existence against those who wish it harm and against the natural human tendency to disorder and chaos. Force is not something wicked regimes use, it’s part of the structure of reality.

Step2’s comment at 7:40 pm is the mark of an enemy, not one who is honestly asking for an explanation. He says that referring to Christianity as an authority society is nothing more than manipulating people, a la Pavlov and his dogs.

Permit me to point out, though, that if there is no God who has authority over man, then man is the only supreme being, and manipulation and intimidation, not rational discourse and persuasion, is the only way for society to be ordered. For if there is no God in which the people generally believe, and someone disagrees with the desires of the leadership class, they have no resort but manipulation and intimidation.

His crack about the Bible not being understandable is an allusion to one of the atheists’ main arguments: People disagree about religion, but they (allegedly) can agree about science, so let’s let science rule. But science, by definition, cannot answer the questions that most matter to man, and it therefore has no authority. Having no authority, it cannot protect man against tyranny. The (alleged) rule of science disarms man in the face of his enemies.

Besides, “science” is often just the name leftists use for their false and wicked doctrines, when these doctrines are opposed.

Alan,
I'm saying that your appeals to eternal rewards and terror are Pavlovian bells to manipulate a behavioral response. You want to make a rational and persuasive argument, make one, just don't offer snake oil like this and call it reason.

Since I consider myself to be somewhat of a secular evangelist, I happily accept your designation as an enemy.

Alan, this is how you started your article,

"The liberal's basic problem is that he is participating in the false and wicked system of liberalism, a system that is dragging him and his nation down to destruction. His basic need is to hear this bad news (the truth about liberalism) and the good news of conservatism that there is a truer and better way."

"Liberals don't just hold false beliefs. They're also lost souls, participants in a false and destructive way of life. They need to hear the good news that liberalism is false and there's a better way for them and for America. And we conservatives need liberals to hear the good news so we can have hope of igniting a counterrevolution that will restore a properly-ordered (or at least tolerably-ordered) American society."

You then go on to write,

"Politics, at root, concerns man's most basic beliefs, and concern with basic beliefs is inherently religious."

Which conflates religion and politics in a way that is more common to the 16th and 17th centuries then any time (at least in the Anglosphere)) over the past 200+ years.

And then,

"The most important point first. Conservatives have only one weapon: articulating truth. Winning by force is impossible now: the enemy currently has all the formal power. And even to use force, we must first use persuasion to assemble the army that will exert the force. At the most basic level there can be only one plan: persuasion."

I assume you are a "first principles" type of guy and yet here you are offering the weakest type of consequentialist argument to the use of force in domestic politics.

"Now", in the context of the rest of the article (as well as designating commenter Step2 as "enemy") would give pause to anyone familiar with the consequences of folks who process their political through Trotskyist and Schmittian frames actually getting power.

And how does an American Christian in the 21st century even form the thought that,

"... even to use force, we must first use persuasion to assemble the army that will exert the force."

Now, I just may be naive here as I don't typically encounter such meditations on the practicality of violence in our politics in the introductory paragraphs for articles on the left (or, for that matter, on the right).

Alan, you would do well to step back and try to read what you write as another, not operating in true believer mode, might read it.

I take it, Al, that "army" was metaphoric. Alan was quite clear in this thread as to what he meant by "force"--namely, the enactment and enforcing of laws. Liberals use force. If a businessman is shut down by an EEOC lawsuit for violating non-discrimination laws, that's a use of force. If a judge puts out a court order requiring that someone be dehydrated to death and sends sheriffs to see that it is carried out, that's force. Force is used all over the country in the service of what you want, Al. If, for example, we got laws passed that we wanted--against abortion or pornography, for example--and people got thrown in jail for breaking them, that would be force.

Sorry Lydia, the meaning of force in,

"Winning by force is impossible now..."

and

""... even to use force, we must first use persuasion to assemble the army that will exert the force."

is clear. The whole tone of the article reinforces that.

Anytime a law is passed, it can eventually involve the police power of the state. Your generous reading of Alan's use of "force" flies only if we ignore the wording and tone of the entire work. Also, we have your quite civil article with which to contrast it.

This does raise an interesting point. Anyone on the left who produced a similar item would be dismissed a somewhat of a nut. There is a place for even fiery polemics and we have plenty of those on both sides but there is something different here as far as I'm concerned. Still, this is America and others mileage will vary.

Going back to your examples on the use of force and laws on abortion, are you aware of the results in Colorado? An anti-abortion, personhood amendment to the Colorado Constitution was soundly defeated.even in Colorado Springs. Perhaps Alan recognizes that what social conservatives desire is unattainable democratically.

Obviously, Al, people are unlikely to vote for an anti-abortion law or state constitutional amendment when they know it will simply be struck down by SCOTUS. But I fully agree that if R. v. W. were overturned tomorrow, we'd still have plenty of work ahead and that most people in the U.S. are not as pro-life as I am. That's partly a result of all these years of R. v. W. itself, of course. But we could, y'know, try overturning R. V. W. and give democracy a try on the matter. A rad thought.

Lydia,

What would your view be on the argument that Paul in the New Testament endorses natural law reasoning, which is accessible by reason to Christians and non-Christians alike, and that therefore the political alliance should be between political conservatism (of the natural law, not the consequentialist, variety) and all those willing to accept the natural law (whether Christian, secular, of non-Christian faiths, etc).

Anselm