Did I mention how happy I am that Georgetown's Patrick Deneen is blogging again? This morning, Patrick draws attention to a reflection by a writer named Joe Bageant , who discusses how our consumerist society is actually post-political, disfranchising both organized labor and religious conservatives. Here's the Bageant post from which Patrick quotes, calling it "bloody brilliant;" it's written in the voice of an anonymous political consultant; it's not clear whether or not this is Bageant's own:
It should not come as a surprise that the dominant ideas and mores of popular culture have become the dominant ideas of our society. Popular culture is the breaker of customs, prejudice, tradition and relevant historical knowledge.It is a result of this dynamic that the two consistent winners in American politics over the last 30 years have been the cultural left and the economic right. Despite the massive organizing drive of the religious right over the past three decades, they are further away from reversing the cultural liberalization of American society than when they started. On others side of the ledger, organized labor outside of a few urban pockets and industries is no longer a relevant force in American life. The ever greater electoral activism of both of these groups is generally misunderstood as a show of strength; in fact, it is the exact opposite. It is the desperate fight of the losing side of the American economic, cultural and political scene.
In essence the same forces that make it possible for the rapid acceptance of ideas such as gay marriage are the same force which can create a society that will accept massive social inequalities.
In the post political world the candidates who can best thrive in it have tremendous appeal to the economic elites; these candidates thrive in a system that does not dwell on issues and will never ask the question, "who has power and why", but simultaneously creates a social and media environment of stupefying distractions while destroying traditional social mores (under-credited as a source of much social solidarity). This can only benefit their continued rule of that society.
Bageant describes Obama as the current politician who best understands the current moment, and who is best able to capitalize on this mood. He -- Bageant -- is a self-described redneck progressive who certainly seems to be fed up with the condescension of his party and the media toward rural people and others in flyover country. Here, for example, is a recent Bageant column in the Guardian. Excerpt:
If we bothered to cover redneck culture we'd be surprised to find how many progressive rednecks, what I call leftnecks, are out there. America's media caste, however, is put off by the way these folks look and sound, and by their unpredictable opinions. It's happy to deal with the rural red-state working class as long as it remains out there somewhere in "the heartland", a place to be polled and surveyed by Gallup to fuel self-absorbed political punditry.Those in the media are granted entitlement to be the one voice, defining America to the many. And they keep that entitlement as long as they maintain false objectivity and keep working-class people politically in the dark. That is not difficult. Every daily newspaper has a business section, but none has a labour section. My European friends, this is no accident. No accident at all.
Here's a link to Bageant's book, "Deer Hunting with Jesus." Must. Get. It.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Watcher: So, Turmarion... where's your gun? You firing at them too?
I don't even know who you're talking about.
In the spirit of "judge not, lest ye be judged,", I make no claim as to the state before God of Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Pastor Kalnins, Jeremiah Wright, any poster here, or anyone else. I don't think a person's religion or denomination or pastor has any direct relevance as to their suitability for office.
I do, however, believe that there is indirect relvance in this sense: If Wright preaches a message of virulent black nationalism, then is fair to ask if Obama, as a congregant, shares such views. It seems he has made it clear he does not. If Kalnins preaches that people may be damned because of their political affilition or activism, it is fair to ask if Palin, as a congregant, shares such views. Whether she does or not is not yet clear. I do not think that a person who shares either of these sets of views is fit for the office of President or Vice President.
My main point was that whereas Rod made many posts regarding Wright, he has made none to date regarding Kalnins, which seems to me inconsistent.
I agree with you that anyone who, in your words, "proudly insists that not only has he the right to condemn a person's soul for their politics, but to judge a soul by the politics of the person," is in the wrong and reprehensible; but once again, I have no idea whom you're talking about.
To conclude, I think that critcism of or disagreement with others whose views we oppose should never be a cause for hatred or nastiness. I am in complete agreement with the thread about a week ago in which Rod brought up that point. My assumption is that most posters here are of goodwill, and it is not my place to judge them in their personal lives or before God. Disagree with or charitably criticize, yes; judge or condemn, no. To the extent that I fail in that, I ask forgiveness from any offended individuals, as well as from God for my manifold sins and imperfections.
Having said this, I'm going to leave it at that on this thread. I neither desire nor intend to get into flamewar here.
Turmarion, a little help, please -- can you give either a direct quote (of more than four words) or a minute mark for that video so I can get some context on "question their salvation?"
If he really said that someone's lack of support for the Bush administration calls their salvation into question, he's wrong, way wrong, no argument.
But is it possible that he said that the kind of blatantly uncharitable things that are frequently said about the Bush administration are so obviously and blatantly violating basic Christian behavior that it calls their Christianity into question?
That would be far, far more reasonable. In fact, given some of the stuff I'd seen, I'd agree that it's at least worth asking how "Christianity" is compatible with some of it.
Here's the link to the full story on it.
The quote (from above article): During the 2004 election season, [Kalnins] praised President Bush's performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." Kalnins added: "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time."
More: Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government's handling of Hurricane Katrina. "I hate criticisms towards the President," he said, "because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."
He doesn't seem to be stipulating "blatently uncharitable" things which "obviously and blatantly violate basic Christian behavior".
This hilarious: "In essence the same forces that make it possible for the rapid acceptance of ideas such as gay marriage are the same force which can create a society that will accept massive social inequalities."
In other words, gay marriage not only causes divorces and will generally bring about the decline of western civilization it will also make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
But wait, the social conservative says, I am not arguing that gay marriage causes economic inequality, but that support for one entails the other. Which is only slightly less dumb.
Tell me: Once gay marriage is legalized and Armageddon with its Soddom, Gomorrah, and Proletariat fail to emerge, can I say I told you so?
I've read "Deer Hunting with Jesus," and the first quote from "the anonymous political consultant" doesn't sound like Bageant. In the book bageant makes no bones about excoriating latte drinking Democrats. But he he also says that the Republicans are chillingly good at chumming up to the very rednecks that they're screwing horribly and repeatedly. Bageant's no conservative. He despises many present day Democrats because they can't get past appearances and recognize that most of those white rednecks would support them if they would only not be aloof and condescending. Crying shame, because as he points out, the Republicans are happy to be their best friends even as they sell them down the river.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.