Thursday, March 31, 2005

Pejoratives?

This is irritating: using terminology like "religious right" and "politics" as rhetorical hammering for the apparent purposes of insult and dismissal. Words and their use are critically important in social discourse, and so are the attitudes with which we make our attempts to communicate and argue our positions.

In the case of the expression "religious right" the citations are too numerous to list. Who are the users of this expression talking about? Presumably they refer to those voters and social advocates who are of conservative orientation, who voted to re-elect President Bush, and whose social positions are influenced by values they consciously derive from their church, mosque, congregation or general religious tradition.

Those who characterize these citizens as the "religious right"--the "non-religious left"?--appear to have in mind that in our society it's not legitimate to allow oneself to hold opinions, beliefs, values or specific cultural affiliations that might be derived from religion. If this appearance is true, then it is wrong on two very serious counts.

In the first place, it's wrong because religion is at the root or core of all civilization and culture. This is true, of course, of our republic and its central values--all the more true because this is an intentional society, not of gradual and accidental origin, but made by a set of deliberate choices based on issues of philosophic and religious principle. It's not only understandable but also legitimate and within the spirit of the Founders to argue social issues and policies from such ground, provided one is respectful of others' commitments. That's how the system is designed to operate. The ever-perceptive Toqueville spoke about the nation "with the soul of a Church" precisely because the wounds of religious war were not present in the American consciousness, and citizens were free to act on such principles without consequence. So it's OK, for example, to debate about civic and legal duties toward human life either from secular perspective or on religious grounds.

The second reason that using this "religious right" characterization is improper is that it's simply an attack ad hominem. More than one of my college philosophy professors would have warned us about delivering opinions in such personal terms. "Religious right" is a meaningless expression unless it's used pejoratively. All those of any persuasion--liberal and conservative--who contribute to the public debate these days would be well-advised against using such terminology.

The other misused term is "politics," as in "Oh, that's just politics." The recent pejorative use that's bothersome is in yesterday's New York Times headline for John Danforth's commentary. (Click on header above.) Politics is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is the "medium" in which social organization, especially democracy, operates. We can't avoid it. As Aristotle notes, politics and political things are useful properly to humans, who have to negotiate life together in society. They are exactly as basic as the faculty of speech, without which we are "either beasts or gods". Senator Danforth may not like the particulars of the "religious agenda" but in all honesty he should respect the legitimacy of that set of issues as they appear in the thinking of "his" party rather than censoring their consideration.

By the way, exactly how was it that the Terry Schiavo matter became a "political" issue? It was political the moment the disagreement between the parties came before a court of law and were pursued in court unremittingly until "resolved" by her death this morning. It's completely legitimate to have discussed the issues her case has brought to light. Perhaps Ms. Schiavo's untimely and unnecessary suffering will continue to bother all of us for a long time.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Final Four

I still have two of my original picks alive: Illinois and North Carolina. Too bad I didn't put a few shekels in the office pool.

Schiavo

Points to consider, based on the weekend's events, or lack thereof:

***Just the fact that you're tired of a person's being alive doesn't mean it's time for that person to die. What's the hurry? Nowhere do the Schiavo death party even come close to saying that some unhappy turn in Ms. Schiavo's condition had taken place, or that she was "nearer death" at this point than at some earlier point. I think there are some logical problems here that bear looking into in addition to the ambiguity of the diagnosis. Convicted out of his own mouth....

***It's just disappointing that the courts, in spite of the genuinely debatable, if bold, attempts to goad them to act, couldn't find some way to (at least) place a fig leaf of further serious deliberation on their (now) seemingly cynical dismissals. They decide-and-run, much as a mugger does his victim. Granted, we have a separation of powers. But the importance of the name "republic" attached to our political being implies an ability and a vision of due and deliberate consideration to matters of fundamental right, which many believe this case to be. The courts have failed in their duty to provide helpful guidance on at least one front: the manner for resolving cases of this nature with apparently conflicting claims of fact. Or, do these judges think we're all just stupid and deserve no explanations.

***Jeb Bush is really caught in the middle. He has spoken and acted with great restraint--in a manner that used to be called 'politic'. He has refused to venture into areas of doubtful legality. I'm reminded of the behavior of a referee in an important game, who won't call the dubious or cheesy foul, preferring to let the players sort things out according to the spirit of the rules. By such an approach he affirms the validity of the legal system and keeps the focus on the judges and on Mr. Schiavo. The facts, perhaps sordid in ways we can only imagine, WILL come out.

***Final thought: If I'm the Florida Governor and/or Attorney General, I'm already looking at how some further inquiry can be brought to bear: perhaps a grand jury, or the county prosecutor?

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Some good news

Another popular uprising following a corrupt election. Kyrgyzstan? The remotest places are not immune to the contagion of democracy.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Politics and the Constitution

As a philosophical point about the supposed constitutional crisis the Schiavo case has provoked:

The republic was founded with the writing of a Constitution that inherently contained the seeds of polarity, contradiction and challenge. Mixed government forces opposition, compromise, and new understandings and practices. It insures growing complexity because the government itself is established as a complex system resistant to all attempts to simplify the exercise of power by judges, by bureaucrats or by the executive, by the legislature. Each of these parties, given the opportunity, would exercise a fatal simplification against this dynamic system.

In the Schiavo case, the branches simply have not arrived at the formula that will open the door to a solution that respects the prior and God-given rights of the human person and citizen. Why not? On the one hand, judicial hubris, and on the other, executive and legislative lack of will. The system is grossly out of balance here. I think that bothers us as much as the revelation that the people are so misinformed.

That Hideous Strength

Catching news updates and fragments today, I found lodged in my mind the recollection of reading C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength, about the debasing of life's value in the scientific era. I know the story is dreadfully dated--about the eugenics movement, etc. But, the more clinical we become, the more we talk about the "quality of life," the more we talk about whose say-so it is to remove nutrition and hydration from this human person (who is NOT in the final throes of a fatal disease), the less it seems that the life itself, whose value is infinite and absolute, matters.

Of course, the novel is not about the evils of science entire, but about what happens when science (in our case, medecine) begins to serve the purposes of expediency and ideology. I think we should be very disillusioned about medical practice after this is over. Should I have to ask my doctor about her/his politics before I get really sick?

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Next Schiavo episode?

Mr. Bennett's program this morning was brilliant on the news from Florida.

What's so dismaying is not that there are differences of opinion. This has every appearance of being one of those difficult moral situations where there are no "winners". We could only wish that this were the case!

The reality is that this is about truth. The talking points, especially from Mr. Schiavo's side and from the promoters of her death, are pure propaganda. And it appears from the polls that "the American people"

--don't read past the surface;

--aren't very smart;

--aren't informed on these medical issues;

--don't care about life (especially inconvenient life) and its objective value ;

--are no longer influenced by core Judaeo-Christian morality.

Pick one.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Schiavo, Sunday evening

At this point, the Senate has passed the bill federalizing the Schiavo case by voice vote. Waiting for the House to diddle around, waiting for a quorum and late-night vote.

The networks seem to be fixated on the point that to them this appears a right-to-die case. It's not, for some good reasons:

--Nutrition is not considered "extraordinary means" for keeping someone alive beyond the point of natural death, nor should it be. You and I need nutrition, even when we aren't able to provide it for ourselves.

--Ms. Schiavo may or may not be in an irreversible, persistent vegetative state. The facts regarding her medical condition are very much in dispute.

--There are no instructions written by Ms. Schiavo regarding what is to be done, only Mr. Schiavo's claim that his wife did not want to go through prolonged suffering, etc. And even with such a document, Ms. Schiavo would not seem to meet the requirements for such instructions to be followed.

--The same small group presents every appearance of having hijacked this case: Mr. Schiavo, his attorney, and the judge, with the complicity of at least one doctor who seems to have an agenda.

--The Schindler family makes the claim to video evidence, doctors' testimonies, and other evidence that they possess, and that they say has never been heard.

--When the science (in this case, medicine) turns political, all the facts and claims to fact need to be brought to public view and properly adjudicated.

Where the right to basic liberties in many other sorts of situations has been the basis of federal intervention, it would seem appropriate to take this case by some mechanism to that level as well. I understand that this is what the leaders of the Congress are trying to do. They may not all have the perfect motives, but the essence of good political leadership is to find an appeal that is broad enough to move even the venal.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Philosophy, Discipleship and the Earliest Church

[Early Saturday morning, at Starbucks. Remember that Peg and Al are teachers. Peg is reading the sports page and enjoying her usual, a mocha latte. Enter Al.]

Peg: Well, fancy meeting you here, early riser.

Al: Don't be so cheery. I'm never up this early on a weekend--but I was up most of last night.

Peg: Problems? Can I help?

Al: Not really. Let me get a drink and a muffin and I'll tell you.

[Al slouches back with a gooey muffin and a grande Caramel Macchiatto, doppio.]

Peg: Well, if insomnia's the problem that won't fix it.

Al: I'm actually celebrating. I've been up writing.

Peg: Huh?

Al: Writing.

Peg: So, now you're Tolstoy? You're not busy enough? I know how many things you keep involved in.

Al: Oh, I'm busy enough, but still a bit restless. Every now and then there's a creativity bug that bites me, and I get to work on one of the little writing projects I keep in my file drawer.

Peg: So which project stole your beauty rest last night? Or are you one of those secretive writers that never tell what they're working on, in case the spell should be dissolved.

Al: No, I'm not shy about that. What I'm working on has a religious theme.

Peg: That makes perfect sense, coming from the Math teacher. You're more of a polymath than a mathematician.

Al: I can see that the caffeine does wonders for your vocabulary, too. Lots of things interest me. I'll tell you what: let me bounce a couple of ideas off you, while you're here. Start with this--what sort of person was Jesus Christ?

Peg: Good grief, I didn't expect that. I don't have the training to even begin to answer that question.

Al: That's OK. I don't want a trained answer. The trained answers are faithful to the creed and they are truthful, but I want something that's your honest answer. What sort of relationship do you think Jesus had with the people around him, especially those who gathered around him as his disciples?

Peg: Well, I think you just answered your own question. If Jesus had disciples, then he was a teacher. Does that help?

Al: Maybe. That is what I'd like to get to the bottom of--what sort of teacher? One like you and I are? A traveling preacher? A professor? Some sort of intellectual? A road show entertainer? A talk-show host? A cult leader? A gang leader with an extra dose of "nice"?

Peg: Goodness, stop. Isn't this the sort of question that gets answered when we hear the Gospel read at Church? Don't the dogmas and traditions of Christianity answer that?

Al: Well, see, here's what makes me curious. What the Church believes and teaches is important and I believe it. But it's the final answer.

Peg: Isn't that what we want--a final answer?

Al: Sure, but the final answer is the one that surfaces after all the struggle. It's already a given for believers who come later. That includes us.

Peg: So what's wrong with that? Why would I want to work for something that's already provided, just for the asking? Besides, isn't this like "revelation"? We really don't want to have some other final answer, do we? Then we'd be either nonbelievers or heretics.

Al: I don't really think I'm questioning or disapproving of what the Church teaches.

Peg: Then doesn't the question about Jesus get answered pretty clearly? I remember my RCIA training: Jesus is Lord and Redeemer, Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, God Incarnate, who became one of us, suffered and died to forgive our sins, rose from the dead and reigns eternally at the right hand of the Father.

Al: You're precisely right. Those questions were and are answered perfectly well within the traditions of the Church, in the Catechism, for example. And the Church is precisely right.

Peg: So, why give yourself agita over this.

Al: Oh, I hate that word, “agita”. It reminds me of an old boss.

Peg: Sorry, I’m sure that’s a shaggy-dog story for another day. Why are you stressing over this Jesus question?

Al: Because at this point I see a different question--actually two questions. First, what was the nature of the day-to-day relationship, in the teaching sense, that Jesus and his disciples shared? Secondly, was this something that had no precedent in the ancient world, was truly revolutionary, or something that could be expressed in terms of a type of teacher-student experience that those early followers might have observed or followed, as a familiar pattern, somewhere in their time? If the latter is the case, then what can we learn about the manner in which Jesus intended to train the disciples?

Peg: I get it. It’s not the final answer that’s the problem, but more like wanting to discover the path that got one to the answer. If we could read the diary of one of the disciples, how would it show the education process to have proceeded?

Al: Maybe it is a pilgrimage or journey kind of thing. Someone can be completely sure of one’s goal in a formal sense, but not so certain he or she wants to follow the road that takes one there. I’m not sure that’s what I’m trying to say.

Peg: You told me one time that if something is truly good, then it’s both good in the absolute sense and good in the subjective sense. It's about making your commitments personal, making them really belong to you, not just saying you have beliefs, but that they make your life different, give it a vector, sort of.

Al: That’s a good point. The question is what the earliest disciple community may have understood about Jesus, and not just intellectually but socially, affectively and so on.

Peg: Really that is a good question. We’re “spoiled” today because we take for granted the struggles that are involved in heartfelt faith. As a convert I think there is something that I’ve been able to gain--or been given--that the average “cradle Catholic” or the purely ritual Catholic hasn’t totally experienced.

Al: Well, thanks a lot.

Peg: No, no. I don’t mean you, because I see you worrying this stuff all the time. I think about many of our students and their families. If there were some way that we could count on to have them wrestle with the “why follow Jesus” question and to work through to the real answer, which is a learner’s or disciple’s answer, then I’d be really happy.

Al: So would I. See, I think we could try to envision with some consistency--beyond the “doubting Thomas” idea--the road the disciples took on their way to a state where they were ultimately as prepared as humans can be for truth to be revealed.

Peg: You’re not saying that revelation happens through our own efforts--

Al: No, of course not. Revelation is pure grace. What the disciples finally encountered in the Resurrection was pure grace. They could not have been prepared for the implication of that, and so that event became the lens through which the whole of the Jesus story became clear to them. I’m sure you had a Scripture teacher who said that even the Gospels are primarily Passion and Resurrection narratives with a “life of Jesus” attached to the front.

Peg: But Jesus did prepare the disciples for something. There was a process there. I have to believe they were different at the Last Supper than they were the day they were called to become the students of Jesus.

Al: How do you mean that?

Peg: What’s the last, ultimate thing that humans prepare for?

Al: Death, I suppose.

Peg: Wouldn’t the logic of the reality of death prepare us for whatever transcends death?

Al: That’s perfect, Peg. That’s where I gave up last night--or early this morning. You see, I was organizing some materials on how the ancients approached the whole concept of learning to be philosophers.

Peg: They weren’t like philosophers today--mainly writers and college professors?

Al: No, quite different in their presuppositions. The analytical-intellectual part of learning served something else--some approach to living and dying that was a practical, day-to-day activity.

Peg: So you’re not claiming that Jesus was like some professor or intellectual today--just another great teacher--or someone with a set of unique ideas.

Al: I heard someone on TV--I think it was O'Reilly--say that a while back, that Jesus was a “philosopher” like many other philosophers. The question really is what you mean by a “philosopher”. From what I’ve read, the old philosophic schools, even Plato’s academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum, were not simply places to “get educated” in the modern sense of the word. Instead, they were associations in which one learned a way of life oriented to the service of a timeless good. When a student or disciple joined, he made a commitment to seek and practice a way or discipline of life that was different from that lived in society at large. They represented a real critique of society’s ways and were present as a sort of party in Hellenistic Greece and the Roman world in its heyday.

Peg: So questions of meaning and destiny would have been part of the student’s wrestling with life’s issues?

Al: That’s the way I read it. And, even more interesting, they committed themselves to living
well--in friendship with one another and in service to the larger society.

Peg: Why?

Al: They were all technically pre-Christian, so they didn’t have a personal Heaven or Risen Life, as we are taught. They did understand two things. The first was a sense of the eternity or eternal quality of certain goods whose power and purity could only be approximated in this life: truth, beauty, justice, goodness or virtue. The other thing was the importance of a certain principle of life: something to live by practically. Even these ancients were really civilized in this sense: that a person’s life was something that made a difference to that individual and to the quality of the community life of which the person was a part.

Peg: So you’re saying that there was some kind of ancient pattern of a community dedicated to good life and some sort of permanent happiness. So Jesus and his disciples might have formed a society that would have been recognizable according to this pattern. I guess historically speaking this would be more true in the Greek parts of the Mediterranean world than in Judea of Jesus’ day.

Al: My sense is that the parallels were even more extensive, and even more conscious. Now here’s where we come back to the beginning: if we understand this pattern more deeply, can we get a better sense of the way in which the disciples grew as individuals and became a community? And, can we get a better sense of how this group becomes, ultimately, the Church? And even further, might we even get a deeper understanding of our own searching and some consolation that what the disciples of Jesus went through was divinely inspired, but made use of a very human and natural sort of pedagogy?

Peg: You know what else? If you understand the students, you have a clue about the teacher. We might get a better idea about Jesus as the teacher of a way of life and as a pattern for teachers--and not just religion teachers or clergy.

Al: So, is the idea worth pursuing?

Peg: I hate to admit it to you, but I think so. But you have to make your intention clear.

Al: What's not clear?

Peg: Well, don't turn Jesus into some sort of intellectual. We have plenty of those. They just make a lot of noise and don't accomplish much.

Al: So there's teaching and there's--what?

Peg: If real teaching shows something about truth, even revealed truth as you described it, then that's a good thing. It's like leading by example, or good coaching, or being a guide for someone as they learn new responsibilities. The last teacher conference I went to called it mentoring. They said it was more about attitude than about qualifications.

Al: That's amazing.

Peg: What is?

Al: You've just described the same division the Greeks understood with regard to teaching, between the philosophers and the sophists. The philosophers, or friends of wisdom, were the heads or senior disciples in the communities of learners who really wanted to practice a more worthwhile and deeper kind of life than they found in society at large. Some wanted training so they could be wise leaders. These folks distanced themselves especially from professional instructors they called the "sophists".

Peg: I've heard of them. They played language games and taught people how to argue.

Al: Right. They charged fees for people to learn speaking skills, "rhetoric," so they could present even falsehoods skillfully. Rhetoric came to be called "the political art" because it was the skill of persuading the public to your point of view. It was about gaining influence, not about truth.

Peg: And politicians haven't changed a bit. So the point is that the way of living is just as important to the teacher as the subject matter. This sure aims us back to the example of Jesus, doesn't it? He was all about the preparation for truth. I'll bet you could re-read the Gospels and see the teacher-disciple relationship pretty fully in this light.

Al: I'll bet someone could do that.

Peg: Who might that be?

Al: I don't know, but it sounds like chapter four or five. I've got to hit the computer. See you later--and thanks, you've really helped!

Peg: Bye!

[Al exits.]

Peg: I'm not sure what all that was!

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Where Terry Schiavo stands today

The NRO link above is to an update of the whole legal situation. This is about the best I've read.

Hat tip: Bill.

A further thought: as opined here previously, this case is only controversial because of the persistent denial of fact by Ms. Schiavo's husband, such as he is, his attorney, the judge, and others who are NOT disinterested parties, yet present themselves as such. It's a web of deceit. The free admission of facts for the record would spell the demise of these people.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Government and the moral atmosphere

From the March 2005 issue of Columbia, the K of C's magazine. Carl Anderson cites Vaclav Havel's anthology of speeches, The Art of the Impossible: Politics as Morality in Practice (New York: Fromm International, 1998):

“But all of this is still not the main problem. The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment. We felt morally ill because we got used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore each other, to care only for ourselves. Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility and forgiveness lost their depth and dimensions. …

“The previous regime…reduced man to a force of production. … It reduced gifted and talented people to nuts and bolts of some monstrously huge, noisy and stinking machine, whose real meaning is not clear to anyone.

“When I talk about contaminated moral atmosphere, I am not just talking about the [communist officials]. I am talking about all of us. We had all become used to the totalitarian system and accepted it as an unalterable fact of life, and thus we helped to perpetuate it. … None of us are just its victims: We are all also its co-creators.”

A nifty insight, worth taking note of even in the free world, if we are to remain free. Be warned.

New Democracies

All of us know that democracy is no guarantee of honest government. It is, however, better than the alternatives from this point of view, because it establishes conditions where leaders and common citizens do not HAVE to be entirely corrupt. Hence, "freedom" in a very radical sense indeed. On the tyrant's fears, see Xenophon's very interesting little dialogue called "Hiero".

Sunday, March 06, 2005

Life issues

On the Schiavo case: With the release last week of the public records and the continuing extensions of the case by the judge, it seem that the execution of Ms. Schiavo may not be inevitable. I hope this turns out to be true. The conflicting stories about her condition are not matters of interpreting differently the same facts. It appears that the facts truly differ. The judge, if he's got any sense at all, MUST let the facts come to light for the court's record in a way they have not been allowed to yet.

Abortion: I said years ago that medical technology will make it a moot point. I think we're heading in that direction. I can't imagine that the public mind will continue to hold to the fiction of the fetus as some undifferentiated life form wholly subordinated to the mother's--oops, woman's--interests when very, very tiny babies born ever earlier in term are able to thrive.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Papal update

A small story on Zenit (www.zenit.org) this week about Cardinal Meissner of Germany visiting JPII in the hospital. The Pope's visit to Germany later this year is still on, according to the Cardinal, who found John Paul stronger than he expected would be the case. All of you who were getting the black bunting out of storage can go ahead and put it right back where you took it from.

Deo gratias!

Scary times

The money folks on Cavuto's Fox Network program this morning were rattling away about the events in the Middle East and elsewhere. Even happenings that have great potential for good upset the pro investors. Ideology ends where practicality begins--which is where the wallet opens.

In spite of caution, they all seemed to agree that there was a significant correlation between the arrival of liberalized polity and economic freedom. Is one more an embodiment of the just regime than another, or is there something distinctly necessary and organic about the two coming into being together?

Money! --Episode 2

[Peg and Al are teachers--what would they know about economics?]

[Lunch hour Friday. Peg bursts into Al's classroom, paper sack in hand.]


Peg: Alright, smart guy, I've got you now!

Al: Oh?

Peg: Oh, nothing! Remember how we finished on Monday--you had me almost agreeing that the goal of capitalism is friendship.

Al: I do recall that. Why don't you sit for a minute and have your sandwich--

Peg: That's what I intend--while I instruct you in economic philosophy.

Al: Instruct me? I thought we were peers on Monday afternoon. But I'm always willing to learn. At any rate, it sounds like you've reevaluated the idea.

Peg: I certainly have. I think you tried to sell me a fraudulent product, and I fell for it.

Al: I'm the one who fell for that timesharing scam a couple of years ago. I don't think I'd deliberately sell you what you didn't want to buy, Peg. But it's possible we both let some arguments slip by without much examination.

Peg: Part of the problem is that I really did want to buy what was on the market at that point. See, while I'm often critical of free enterprise, I want it to be a valid system for societies and for the world, because freedom is better than the lack of freedom. If you can avoid bureaucracy, rules and regulations and still have people accomplish, earn wealth and build their futures, then that's good. It frees them for the leisure you were so avid about on Monday. I guess being sold on the idea prematurely goes along with being the Civics teacher.

Al: So, what's the problem, exactly?

Peg: The problem isn't that capitalism doesn't work. It may work too well--for a few. Look at the effects. This system doesn't seem to care what the "collateral damage" is. There are too many who are poor. People around the world think the system is wicked and excludes them. We in the U.S.A. consume resources disproportionately and at an alarming rate. And you claim that capitalism has the goal of "friendship"?

Al: Well, I believe it does. But I also know there are parties in the world who are mad about how "the West" has so much while they have so little. They also perceive that the prosperity is the result of exploitation of humans and resources, especially from the rudimentary, resource-based economies of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Peg: Aren't they right?

Al: Yes, but only half-right.

Peg: What do you mean, "half-right"? The whole colonial era and its legacy have created an impossible economic situation in the world. Throw in the environmental damage, too, for that matter. How will the poorest nations ever catch up?

Al: Are you sure you don't want to include male-domination as well?

Peg: That, too.

Al: The poor have a case on all those grounds. I'll admit that.

Peg: So, why are you taking the steam out of my arguments?

Al: Well, I think this deserves some more looking into, issue by issue. Let's take one of the parts of the case and examine it a little more closely, then move on to another when we're satisfied with the conclusion. Do you have a little time to get started, at least? We really do need to look at what the specific grievances are.

Peg: Sure, I have time. But, here we go again .... You're going to take every objection that I've raised and take it apart minutely. In military terms, I think that sound like what a sniper does. There seems something sneaky about that approach, like you're afraid to face the whole force of the army so you use guerrilla tactics.

Al: Not at all. I'm trying to avoid the confusion of mixing too many too many issues together like an omelet. What I hope is that in these issues considered carefully, some common theme will surface, even if it's that the situation is too complicated. We're both taking for granted that the issues--colonialism, capitalism, wild contrasts of wealth, cultural hegemony--are all related, aren't we?

Peg: Sure, but a common theme--like what?

Al: I'm not sure. Let's try a couple of broad issues and see where they lead us. You mentioned colonialism.

Peg: O.K., don't you agree that most of the poorer part of the world is still suffering from the effects of centuries of colonial rule? Didn't this mean that the European economic system, capitalism, was forced upon these nations in such a way that value in resources and labor was basically stolen from them? How is the capitalist system NOT at fault in this case?

Al: I'm certainly not going to defend colonialism. The European powers certainly extracted great wealth from today's Third World. Their governments became wealthy, or wealthier, almost at an exponential rate during this period. But it happened by a one-way flow of value. On a world scale of that time, you wouldn't call this an exercise in economic or political freedom. The colonizers didn't do the colonies any favors, and they did a lot of lasting harm..

Peg: That's true. What are you getting at? I'm always suspicious when you're too agreeable.

Al: Have no fear--I just believe in an honest approach. The economic system served an ulterior purpose--political sovereignty.

Peg: Did the economics serve the politics, or vice-versa?

Al: Now history's not my strong point, but it seems that the goal of the European states at the time was the political domination of European affairs and hegemony over the sea routes. The accumulation of massive wealth, collectively was an integral and necessary part of this striving for power. But I don't think you can say it was any sort of modern "democratic" capitalism. The goal was not to insure that wealth was shared broadly in even the European populations.

Peg: And so the wealth deliberately flowed to the politically powerful, through the banking and trading classes--eventually to the early industrial barons as well.

Al: I'll bet they all had each other's phone numbers. And I'll admit that significant consequences and leftovers of this early-modern system continue to shape the world. But, today governments in the West, including the "Pacific rim," do seem to be acting to deepen and broaden the distribution of wealth.

Peg: Within limits, yes. I'm not ready to let them off the hook, however.

Al: I'm not either. But the fact that we can think in these terms--that the nations can work with various agencies that are influential in the world to agree on issues of international debt, use of resources and the technicalities of economic start-up in poor nations--indicates that some very significant changes have taken place in the idea of what capitalism is supposed to look like and accomplish.

Peg: Hmm.... I'll agree with that much. I don't know what's going to happen to those poorest-of-the-poor nations, though, like the countries in central Africa.

Al: I don't either. Those are very special cases. There are some things that have to change in major ways.

Peg: Sure, the rich nations have to start paying attention.

Al: That's absolutely right. I got my new Almanac in the mail last week, and as I flipped through it I noticed a table with a ranking of countries where it was either easier or harder to do business depending on the amount of corruption you encountered and the amount of accountability and transparency required under the legal system there. All the very poorest nations were at the bottom of the list.

Peg: Ouch. That does say something. But it confirms that these countries are not only colonial victims, but violent and lawless in their own inner dynamics.

Al: A relatively free and healthy economic system isn't very likely to exist except in a context of laws and civilized behavior, at least if you're talking about American-style capitalism. Whatever that system is that the Chinese are trying to gin up seems to be something different. But I'll bet the basic rule is similar: a stable framework of humane law and a benign social atmosphere have to exist, or its the Wild West, robber barons, hereditary fortunes, and not much else except gross disparity of income between the wealthy and the poor. That's probably still the great danger even in this country.

Peg: I'm glad you have that much concern, at least. Do we really know well enough how this works on such a large scale to be able to put even those poor countries on a footing of basic participation in the world's economic system?

Al: I think we're learning. There's an economist by the interesting name of Hernando de Soto whose books are exactly about this point. I read a review of one not long ago. He has a team of researchers that have gotten down to the nuts and bolts of dealing with the after-effects of the formerly colonial-style economies of the third world. The first two steps of the process he proposes are the establishment of a mechanism to translate labor and other very basic forms of value into the kind of real property stake that has existed in the industrial-technological world for a long time, and then working with the legal and banking structures to protect these stores of usable value on a national basis.

Peg: That sounds like he wants to get to the real root of the problem, since the economics of colonialism was all about NOT having or endorsing any indigenous basis for property rights.

Al: I think de Soto's group has done some actual trial work in Peru and a couple of other places where he has found a sympathetic and willing ear in the government. It's pretty audacious because these reforms require fundamental constitutional changes. The review said there had been promising results on the small scale, and bigger trials were at hand, since his reputation is spreading.

Peg: Why didn't I know about this?

Al: That's a question I'm not touching....

Peg: ... and had better not think about touching, either, smart guy.

Al: At any rate, look at the time. They'll be storming the gates pretty soon.

Peg: I'd better get down the hall. We need to talk about those other topics we mentioned, too--but I think I at least get the gist of where you were going with the case you tried to make on Monday. This capitalism business is not the root of all evil. Certainly it's more complicated than I thought.

Al: You're right--it is complex. I'm glad we agree on that much. Have a good afternoon!

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

A Trend?

Lebanon and Syria.

Saudi Arabia.

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

Ukraine.

I know perfectly well that it's dangerous to generalize. BUT, things do seem to be happening....