Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
A few blog commentators have wondered whether I might be walking close to the line, or even stepping over it, in describing the enablers of murder as moral monsters who are committing treason against the United States. I appreciate their concerns. I have wondered whether I might be doing the same thing myself. But having thought about it, I think not. Here are four reasons why. (I end on a positive note with Dar Williams’ The Christians and the Pagans. I won’t link till the end…) 
First, when we make strong charges, or even weak ones, against another person, I believe we have a moral obligation to provide reasons that can in principle be disproven to back up our claims. If I say you are a murderer I’d better be willing to offer proof, and be willing to retract the charge if the proof does not add up.
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and others of their kind use language similar to that in my last post. That’s no coincidence. I modeled mine on theirs, but with a key difference. I and many other critics offer facts and reasons, they make rhetorical claims without facts or reasons open to challenge, or worse, with outright lies.
Regarding terms like ‘moral monster,’ either such a person is impossible, and what Mao tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Josef Stalin did was not morally monstrous, or the term has meaning. If it does, is it used correctly? Do I use it correctly?
Knowingly to justify torture that was designed to wring false confessions out of innocent people is morally monstrous in my view. Using those confessions to justify war is equally so. Designing aggressive war is also morally monstrous to me. Is my view wrong? Why, then, are these things not morally monstrous?
I think it is bad to attack people unnecessarily. But I also think it is bad not to speak up strongly against the monstrous when they have the power to injure and we have an opportunity to be heard.
That’s my first point.
My second regards humor. Jon Stewart is a national treasure. But I noticed something very interesting about political humor during the Bush years. When Bush seemed unstoppable, the humor was at its best. It was how we coped with disaster in which we felt powerless. It was like the great jokes that emerged in Eastern Europe during the communist years, such as “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism it’s the other way around.”
When Bush began to fade in his popularity, so did the number of jokes. Humor is the wepon of the powerless, and the means by which they cope with their situation.
Stewart speaks truth to power, be it Bush or Obama, or the corporate media, and does so brilliantly. But Stewart is not trying to provide analysis except through brilliant use of their own words against them. Stewart takes them down a peg or two, but as a comedian he does not offer explicit solutions. If he did, it would not be through humor, and he’s likely lose his show. In a very real sense, humor is Stewarts’ weapon given the position he has.
Not only do I not have his genius or his resources, I am trying to provide analysis of deeds and particularly of those who support deeds that are monstrous.
That’s my second point.
Thirdly, these people have monopolized moral language, and they have done so immensely destructively. They have replaced a mostly pragmatic politics with a politics of continual moral absolutism. This was done deliberately. Pat Buchanan sent a memo to Nixon before Watergate saying that the only hope for his presidency was to deliberately split the country, with Republicans getting “the larger half.”
Nixon tried and failed. His crimes caught up with him. But his successors kept with Buchanan’s recommendation. That is why they painted everything in terms of “values.” We can easily compromise over most issues, but not over most values. They are easily stated in absolutist dichotomies with those on the other side being depraved – as Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and so many others have so well demonstrated. This is a time honored tactic of tyrants, and, if it happens, is how American democracy will be destroyed from within.
I think it is vital for our country and our future that these people be seen as the moral zeros they are because in a democracy politics mostly needs to be over issues with which people can compromise. When that ceases to be, politics splits and divides in such a way that neighbors become enemies. When this happens the political process often rewards those who divide us rather than those who can find common ground.
By the way, this is a genuinely conservtive argument, one Edmund Burke would have endorsed.
That’s my third point.
Finally, when I first began researching the “Christian” right and what claims to be “conservatism” these days – and in my view these people are neither Christian nor conservative – I was appalled that neither reason nor good will mattered to them in public discussion. When people have cut themselves off from reason and good will, they have cut themselves off from being open to genuine CO-mmunication. There are no common standards across which or through which people who disagree can search for common ground.
Consider the evidence that leading “conservatives” and right wing “Christians” almost always employ personal attacks whenever they are criticized. This was standard operating procedure in the Bush White House even for former allies and continue today. Look at how Colin Powell is treated: he can have no respectable reasons for his views when he criticizes the Right. As Limbaugh said, Powell supported Obama because Obama was Black. No other reason than Powell’s alleged racism made sense to him. Dick Cheney reminds us that Rush Limbaugh is better for the Republicans than Powell.
In such an environment sociopaths and the like flourish. But decent people on all sides tend to flee it as toxic.
There does seem to be some hope that most right wingers can be brought back to standards of civilized behavior. Cheney recently said he supported gay marriage. Rather obviously that is because his daughter, Mary Cheney, is gay. He could actually empathize with people different from him through appreciating the situation facing his daughter. Right wing Democrat Jane Harmon was unconcerned with our phones being illegally tapped. When hers was legally intercepted because of another person being tapped her attitude changed. She became a strong advocate for privacy. Apparently right wingers who are not sociopaths can be reached morally
when they experience something personally, or through a loved one, that
opens their hearts to the reality of people different from them.
There are many other examples. I suspect that most right wingers suffer from undeveloped moral imaginations. I suspect this is why they find empathy such an inappropriate value in judges who might empathize with people different from themselves. (They had no objection to such claims for empathetic capacity when mentioned by right wing judicial candidates such as Alito, who were like them)
So perhaps the salvation of our country will take place around Thanksgiving tables, as Dar Williams so wonderfully sees.
posted June 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Gus, I think these are all good reasons about the necessity of speaking out (and though I don’t really like the term “moral monster” because it rejects the fundamental humanness of the people we disagree with, I would agree that, yes, their actions and their rhetoric are “monstrous”).
Really what bothered me about your previous post was the “real American” rhetoric. I bristle at that, because I see forms of nationalism and patriotism as more subtle forms of racism. I have no more pride in having happened to be born American than I have in having happened to be born white, or with blue eyes, or with crooked teeth. I would hope that, had I been born anywhere else, I would still be committed to honesty, integrity, freedom, respect, acceptance, all these things. I think your argument is just as powerful–if not more so–if you leave out the “traitors to real America” trope. The only thing it adds is the unspoken implication that non-Americans don’t also struggle with these issues, which of course is ridiculous! These are not “American” issues, they’re human issues.
And like I said in my comment to your last post, no matter how strongly we condemn the rhetoric of these people, we have to remember that they themselves are not going out murdering anyone. I think, honestly, that what they’re most concerned about is money and power. As hypocritical as they may be about other “values” they preach, they always act consistently to ensure that power and money continue to come their way. They benefit from being controversial, from being provocative (even or especially when what they provoke is hate and fear). If calm, reasoned communication and wide-spread social tolerance suddenly became profitable, I have no doubt we’d hear their tune changing. You already point out ways in which, when it affects them directly, they can suddenly become very open-minded. So it seems to me that the American public itself has to shoulder some responsibility for giving these media ranters what they crave and egging them on. Of course what they say makes me angry–so I just turn the television off. Fewer ratings for them and a lot less grief for me. If everyone started doing that…. just think how quickly their shows would get pulled from the air. I mean, speaking of Jon Stewart: it took one good interview to bring down “Crossfire”!
It’s not about “being nice.” It’s about being truthful and passionate but also practical in our priorities.
posted June 14, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Gus,
I like this article and agree with what has been said.
I think there is something to be said about making people uncomfortable as it has the potential for those people to consider a different possibility or review their stance on issues. I think that those who complain because it hits too close to the real issue, they don’t like this. It’s far easier to complain about an issue that we see in others than deal with the issue in ourselves. Also, I think if you’re hitting a nerve, perhaps there’s a reason.
I really liked your third point. I have watched this happen during the previous President Bush’s Administration. Mr. Bush deliberately sought to divide this country as it was easier for him to control and if there were in-fighting in the country between different groups, there was less of a chance for said groups to complain against him.
Regarding the “Christian” right, to coin the pun, they’re neither.
You said: “When people have cut themselves off from reason and good will, they have cut themselves off from being open to genuine CO-mmunication. There are no common standards across which or through which people who disagree can search for common ground.”
This is so very true! When I would listen to the comments given by the RR and such, I always saw arrogance and self-righteousness in their comments. They had no real concern for anyone different than themselves. Their motivation was to create a system of governing that put them in charge of the country and its people. All laws were to reflect their religious views and interpretations and no one else’s views.
I think it’s very important to see and watch their actions. It speaks about what they are all about and it isn’t good, for anyone but themselves.
This group of people, as far as I’m personally concerned are about an Un-American as you can be. I honestly see them as a brewing pot for many more killings in this country.
A recent example, Dr. Tiller of Kansas. Dr. Tiller performed late term abortions for women who wanted them, for various reasons. The man who killed them, described himself as a “warrior for god”. I personally view the RR as a terrorist group. They want nothing less than total control of this country and have said so.
So Gus, keep up the good work. I like the fact that you’re striking a nerve. Perhaps there’s a reason.
posted June 14, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Ali, one point in your post stood out for me. You stated, “no matter how strongly we condemn the rhetoric of these people, we have to remember that they themselves are not going out murdering anyone”.
That was the exact same reasoning Charlie Manson used when he incited his “Family” to murder. He was sentenced to die for that involvement; his sentence was commuted to life in prison when California banned the death penalty before he was scheduled to be executed.
The right-wing media ranters are as skilled at whipping up the emotions of their audience in much the same way as Manson, or Hitler for that matter. They cannot be given a free pass and declared innocent because they didn’t actually pull the triggers.
I agree with Gus. Being nice is NOT always the best approach. Let’s call an evil what it is, and “treasonous moral monsters” is entirely accurate.
posted June 15, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Well reasoned out Gus, however that is not always so easy to articulate in the heat of an argument
posted June 15, 2009 at 2:10 pm
A former friend once said: “Harm none does not mean ‘stick your head in the sand and candy coat reality.’ To allow harm against others to go unchecked or unchallenged through the actions of a third party is just as bad as doing the harm yourself.”
I am a firm believer that if you see something wrong happening, it is your moral and social obligation to speak out against it and do your best to attempt to correct it.
Elise Fisher
Secretary – The Association of United Pagans
posted June 16, 2009 at 8:51 am
People are worried that you might be using the same hoary, threadbare language and falling into the same patterns of muddled thinking that characterize the cheering section for the conservative right. Sometimes it is tough to “rise above the fray” but it is always worth the effort.
posted June 16, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Quite right, call an entrenching tool a spade.
Thanks as always for your thoughtful post.
posted June 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Cheryl,
(Sorry for not responding sooner!) Like I said before, I am not denying their ethical and social responsibility. I think they can and should be held responsible for the role they play.
My point was, rather, that though words can incite people to murder and other forms of violence, those people must already possess a willingness to relinquish their own free will and act violently at another’s suggestion. Why is that still so true of so many people? What is far more disturbing to me than people who use hate and fear to gain power, is the fact that we as a country so readily give them that power or believe them when they claim it illegitimately. It might not be “nice” or self-gratifying to admit to ourselves, but we are all culpable to some extent. I am not interested in stopping violence merely by inciting people to mindless acts of peaceful obedience rather than mindless acts of fear or hatred. It is not my goal to (as the band Bad Religion says), “give all the idiots a brand new religion” or “expose the corporates and beat ‘em to the children.”
If the only reason people aren’t murdering one another is because we’ve managed to shut up the angry white men…. I think we’ve still failed as a community.
posted June 17, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ali had asked, “….those people must already possess a willingness to relinquish their own free will and act violently at another’s suggestion. Why is that still so true of so many people?”
Well my thoughts are that they are losers who are filled with anger and looking for someone to blame. So as you said, they are “quick to relinquish their own free will and act violently at another’s suggestion”. It makes them feel part of something; that’s the attraction of gangs as well.
I don’t agree with you that we are all partly to blame. And I don’t believe that we’ve failed as a Community. I’m not letting anyone off the hook for their own behavior; people fail as individuals. With the exception of the insane we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions. ANY way to stop violence works for me, as violent acts are not the intelligent way to affect change.