Man Bites Dog of War (by Jim Wallis)
Nice piece this morning by James Carroll in The Boston Globe. He writes about what he calls "the radical militarization of foreign affairs."
A MAN bit a dog last week. Not just any man, and not just any dog. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decried the vast disproportion between America's annual investment in the Pentagon - something like $700 billion - and what is spent on the State Department - about $35 billion. That's less, Gates said in a speech in Kansas, than the Defense Department spends on healthcare. The total number of foreign service officers is about 6,600 - which is less, Gates said, than the number of military personnel serving on one aircraft carrier strike group. The Secretary of defense identified himself as the man biting the dog when he called for "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."
Carroll correctly concludes
Arguably, the single largest threat to national security is the growing gulf between desperately impoverished peoples and those who have what they need to live. What is the Pentagon budget to that? Environmental degradation is also a massive national security threat. How do aircraft carriers help with that?
Confronting the gross inequities and extreme poverty in so much of our world would do far more for both national and global security than constantly increasing military budgets. Swords will be beaten into plowshares, the prophet Micah tells us, when each person has their own vine and fig tree and no one shall make them afraid.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Swords will be beaten into plowshares, Isaiah tells us, in the new kingdom of heaven that will come after Christ's return; not before. Until then, swords will need sharpening, not beating.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 10, 2007 2:30 PM
"Until then, swords will need sharpening, not beating."
Please cite book, chapter, and verse in the NT that supports that assertion.
Posted by: carl copas | December 10, 2007 3:06 PM
"There will be wars and rumours of wars, but the end is not yet."
Matthew 24:6
More obliquely, Romans 13:1-7, concerning submission to ruling authorities.
Plus, you might note that the language of beating swords into plowshares is rooted in the "Day of the Lord" language that is used to describe the final great consummation of history.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 10, 2007 3:24 PM
Can you imagine Christ, the Christ of scripture, sharpening a sword? If you can, you need to read something Christians call the Beatitudes, which are the heart of Christ's teachings. His message is clear and unequivocal.
Who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. As you sow, so shall you reap. We are called to be in the world, but not of the world. Sharpening swords is a worldly (fear-based) response, not a Christian (love-based) response.
Let's concern ourselves first with Christ's direct, clear teachings, and once we have mastered them (e.g. the Beatitudes), then maybe we can dust off those indirect (not Christ's words), ambiguous, oblique texts and interpret them in the light of the Beatitudes.
The whole world is afraid, and sharpening their swords. We Christians are called to act differently. Let Christ govern your heart, not fear. I know it's hard sometimes.
Posted by: Paul Hetzler | December 10, 2007 4:37 PM
Ben Wheaton,
I agree 100% with the point you're making that "the language of beating swords into plowshares is rooted in the 'Day of the Lord' language that is used to describe the final great consummation of history." There won't be lasting universal peace until then.
But why should Christians be sharpening their swords, unless you're using sword as a metaphor for the word of the Lord?
Posted by: carl copas | December 10, 2007 5:07 PM
Carroll ought to know; his Dad, Air Force General Joe Carroll, was the first head of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency and Carroll himself used to work for the FBI. Gen. Carroll, a cold warrior of the first order, was dismissed by Richard Nixon and Henry KIssinger for not being willing to manufacture intelligence and lie to Congress.
Recently, I hear conservative sources refer to Carroll as anti-Christian. I guess that's because he and even his Dad, eventally lost faith in the military solutions they both once belived in - from the inside out.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 10, 2007 5:07 PM
My hope is in Christ alone; however, I also have no illusions about the interim stage between his death and second coming. Fear does not inform my opinion on this matter, but rather an understanding of men's hearts. A simplistic reading of Scripture like you (Paul) give takes no account of the whole of Scripture; we have to understand the timeline given to us in the Bible in order to properly act. There is still a need for violence exercised to restrain evil, and the remainder of the NT never rejects this idea. It is assumed that evil will increase, alongside of the kingdom, until the end.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 10, 2007 5:11 PM
The "Left Behind" wing of the church has no vision to offer mankind, especially now that the apostasy of messianic militarism has failed - the version of Christianity that gained ascendancy in the Republican Party.
What if Jesus doesn't come back next week, next month, next year, next decade or next century?
Do we have anything else to offer than a doomsday scenario in which we want people to be personally saved, but we don't care too much about any goals or vision for human progress and life because an apocalypse makes it all irrelevant to us, except to be warrior participants?
How does this make us functionally different in what is important for mankind living one earth in the here and now - and the future -, from, say Jehovah's Witnesses and their apocalyptic constant?
Won't the world similarly reject us, and rightfully so?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 10, 2007 5:32 PM
Maybe the New Testment says there will be wars and rumors of wars, but it also says that there will be many different kinds of sin (gossip, sexual sin, etc). Nowhere, though, do I find that Scripture tells us to sin or start rumors of wars, or wars themselves. Besides, we are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. Who are our neighbors--those outside our nationality, or our ethnic group or religion. That seems to be the thrust of the story of the Good Samaritan. I don't think warring against someone is loving them very well.
Posted by: Diane | December 10, 2007 5:47 PM
"My hope is in Christ alone; however, I also have no illusions about the interim stage between his death and second coming. Fear does not inform my opinion on this matter, but rather an understanding of men's hearts. A simplistic reading of Scripture like you (Paul) give takes no account of the whole of Scripture; we have to understand the timeline given to us in the Bible in order to properly act. There is still a need for violence exercised to restrain evil, and the remainder of the NT never rejects this idea. It is assumed that evil will increase, alongside of the kingdom, until the end."
Ben, I've been where you are now. I used to preach this stuff on street corners. So I totally understand you. But, you need to know what you sound like, what I sounded like. Christians shouldn't live under that yoke. I feel for you man. I really do :(
Posted by: Bruce | December 10, 2007 6:26 PM
N.M. Rod - Why does so much seem to about politics to you? No one here mentioned conservatives, liberals, political parties, etc until you started posting. Can't we just discuss the posts here without you and others bringing politics into it immediately and blaming things you don't like in the world on the opposing political party? Even if there were no conservatives, neocons, Republicans, "Left Behinders" etc there would still be great evil in the world. You can't blame everything on them.
Posted by: Eric | December 10, 2007 7:28 PM
Can we go back to discussing the topic, instead of insulting those we disagree. The accusation of arrogance and presumption does not further the discussion.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 10, 2007 7:42 PM
Carroll said, "The secretary of defense put his finger on the problem, which is the radical militarization of foreign affairs."
He also said that Gates proposed a solution: "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."
Instead of commenting about how bad things are now, shouldn't we be sending/phoning our support for this change to Gates and congressional leaders?
Posted by: Phil | December 10, 2007 7:59 PM
I have lived under the aggressive regimes of right-wing governments (in Africa). They divide-and-rule, resulting in an us-and-them society. And it ends up with a division, the well-to-do, and the down-and-outs, who struggle to put bread on the table, get a roof over their heads, education for their children, and live with a measure of health to enable them to function each day.
But equally there are those who work to make a difference, now, Christians who put love into action through caring, bringing change to those struggling through empowering, equipping... seeing people achieving who had no hope, and in the process both are transformed. Some work through their local churches, some through supporting organisations that work cross-culturally, overseas... and some get up and go... Get into it... try World Vision, or Habitat for Humanity... Action that is motivated by love will make a difference! Our Lord said we are to be peacemakers, not just peacelovers.
Posted by: Peter C | December 10, 2007 9:13 PM
Peter C,
What would you consider to have been a "right-wing" government in Africa? Just curious.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | December 10, 2007 9:44 PM
The accusation of arrogance and presumption does not further the discussion.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 10, 2007 7:42 PM
It does if it prompts certain posters to consider that eschatology involves more than the comparatively novel 150 year-old spin they're giving to it.
Posted by: canucklehead | December 10, 2007 11:33 PM
Hmmm.... Ben said....
"There will be wars and rumours of wars, but the end is not yet."
Matthew 24:6
Yeah...and I completely agree with you - we will never achieve world peace until Jesus Christ returns. The natural way of the human heart is war. And I believe it will end in a literal Revelation Armageddon.
But...where is that verse telling us to "join the crowd"? If you can't beat 'em, then we Christians ought to join 'em?
Matthew 24:6 is just describing the way things will wind up. The passage goes on to say, "And at that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. And because lawlessnes is increased, most people's love will grow cold."
So...should we actively participate in THAT too? Should we fall way from the faith? Should we stop preaching the gospel, because after all - many are going to fall away. And many false prophets will arise.
Hmmm...maybe...not only are we wasting our time opposing war....since wars will increase...but maybe we're also wasting our time preaching the gospel....since many will fall away...
Okay, okay...I know, I know. I've got a VERY dry sense of humor - and consequently am being a complete pain! So...better clue everyone in - I am TOTALLY pulling everyone's leg here.
But...do you get my point?
Yes, Jesus told us what the rest of the world would do and think and be like! But we are to be DIFFERENT! We are...as Jesus says - to let our lights shine.
Lights shine in the dark of night - because they are DIFFERENT than their surroundings. They don't just go along with the night. They don't just "fit in". Lights dare to be different. They SHINE in the dark with anti-dark - the light.
And yes, I agree with you, Ben. We won't achieve it. The rest of the world cares little about God's ways.
But God called WE CHRISTIANS to be a people that was known for the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 - not the deeds of the flesh. We are to long for Jesus to change us that way.
And by the way, no, I'm not a complete pacifist. I do believe there is a place for the government to protect its people - otherwise, what would we do with police? Just let all the criminals out of jail and let the burglars and rapists and murderers into your house to "Here we are! Come-and-get-it!"
Hmmmm....and so....I do see a place for the government protecting people, including military - but it better be justified - and not with trumped-up weapons inspections.
(2) I'm all for submission to authorities - but if you notice how the early church carried that principle out in fact - they limited that to when it didn't violate God's highter law.
Submission to authorities stops when it's disobeying God.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | December 11, 2007 1:23 AM
And thus continues the formula on so many of the God's Politics threads: a thoughtful article is posted, a naysayer with a hawkish or small-government agenda posts a two-sentence promotion of his agenda, and the rest of us rush to naysay the naysayer and the actual content of the post is all but forgotten. I say the progressives who regularly read this website should storm "Free Republic" or one of the other conservative blogs and we'll see if those blogs let us hijack their conversations this way.
Posted by: I and I | December 11, 2007 9:13 AM
Wolverine... a right-wing government is any government that steals, is corrupt, starts wars, beats up on poor people...basically anything bad. "Right-wing" can be interchanged with "neocon" or "fundamentalist" or even "fascist" if need be.
Posted by: Ross | December 11, 2007 9:39 AM
"I say the progressives who regularly read this website should storm "Free Republic"
I say not. I and I, your missing the point. They need to be here. We don't need to be there.
Posted by: Bruce | December 11, 2007 10:02 AM
I just want to put out the idea that the second coming as well as the Kingdom of Heaven are not dependant on a linear view; indeed both are beyond such limited scopes in time and place, as what is required is an experience of heart.
I may as well be speaking in tongues for many, but time and place are limited concepts in linear thinking produced by patriarchal mindsets.
The divine I AM is a first person relationship!
The second coming and the Kingdom of Heaven are at hand; all ways. The separation is an illusion; we are all part of the oneness of being. Christ be excavated in our souls, enthroned on our hearts, reign over our minds. We have Christ's hands, speak Christ's love, and walk in "the Way". We the People, are the body, our heart is the throne of God, and this is what we lift in the world God so loved...
Now is the time, heart is the place, Love is the law written on our hearts, and it preceeds all others. Truth without love is cruel, Truth with love is Wisdom, our Lord's beloved.
Why is Wisdom ignored to do the destructions linear minds require and demand?
Posted by: Barbara | December 11, 2007 11:02 AM
"missing the point."
Comment well-taken and you're probably right. This blog is more effective when not just preaching to the converted. Mea culpas.
Posted by: I and I | December 11, 2007 11:06 AM
Barbara - Do you not believe that Christ will come again? Is there no "second coming" in your opinion beyond what we experience today? I agree with you that Christ should be "enthroned on our hearts, reign over our minds" but this is very different than the idea that He will come again to this world sometime in the future.
Also, one other thought, if linear thinking is a patriarchal concept are you suggesting that there might be differences between how men and women think? Or that men and women's ways of thinking might make them more adept at certain concepts and disciplines than others? Hmmmm....the implications...
Posted by: Eric | December 11, 2007 11:26 AM
So why isn't a reduction in the exceedingly bloated military budget(, a huge portion going in the hands of corrupt contractors working with corrupt military folk and corrupt politicians ) a central platform of Democrats? Dennis K is th e only candidate with a platform that reflects the teachings of Jesus rather than wishful thinking and gutless submission to the corporate, military, government by bribery arrangement that currently prevails.
No one is coming out of the sky to change the world. The Kingdom of God is a seed that grows and spreads in humans though faith love, peacemaking, and truthtelling. These delusions about salvation from outer space are childish nonsense.
Wheaton adopts the Roman imperial philosophy of peace though victory which crucified Jesus. Which side are you on?
Posted by: jonabark | December 11, 2007 11:37 AM
I'm so grateful for voices like Jim Wallis and Sojourners! AMEN on this blog! Our defense spending is scary and we should be spending more on thoughtful diplomacy and being a blessing to the world rather than using up the world's resources!
We as Christians, need to be working towards the establishment of God's kingdom. However that happens is up to God, but, in the meantime, we should be faithful and proactive stewards of this world that he's allowed us to be a part of and to be a blessing towards.
Posted by: Rich Jones | December 11, 2007 11:48 AM
jonabark - You're setting up a false choice between people like Ben and people who don't believe that there is such a literal thing as a second coming. You actually sound like George Bush (you're either with us or against us). There is a commonsense middle ground, best exemplified by what Paul wrote in the 4th post above combined with a belief that the promises of the Bible will come true.
Posted by: Eric | December 11, 2007 11:53 AM
Ben may be correct that I'm too simplistic; I do struggle with that sometimes. On the other hand, Christ had a pretty simple message, often confounding the most learned minds of his day with his directness and simplicity.
It seems to me that Christ's teachings are the core of Christianity, and that His words should be the foundation of our beliefs. He came with a new worldview, a new standard higher than the old (see Matthew ch. 5). Is it too simple to have His instruction inform our hearts, and where other text might appear to contradict, to put a question mark there and return to Christ's words?
When Christ preached to populations not rooted in the OT, He didn't drag it along and tell them to study it. He simply taught the Good News. Were they not Christian who followed His words and example (not to mention His person) with no knowledge of Deuteronomy or Numbers? Was Christ too simplistic in doing this? I don't think it's fair to second-guess Him and say He did or meant something different.
It's true that Christ said He did not come to abolish the law (the OT law which technically only applied to Jews). But I can't help noticing that He proceeded to strike down Hammurabi's Code ("An eye for an eye," or more accurately, take no more than was taken from you; see Exodus 21:24) as being unjust.
He also altered the conventional meanings of many old laws, telling Christians they must go further with their love and compassion (see Mt. 5:20-48). 'Thou shalt not kill' was expanded to mean that you don't even come to church if you have an unresolved issue with your brother. The OT admonition to 'Love thy neighbor (Lv. 19:18)' was changed to 'Love thy enemies and do good to those who hate you.'
This is the first blog I've ever posted on (I'm 44; my kids blog but I haven't), but in most Christian discourse I've heard up to now, Christ's actual teachings are like the proverbial horse on the dining room table; huge and significant, but, unbelievably, largely ignored in favor of complicated and unclear snippets of text that contradict everything Christ stood for.
So yes, I might be too simplistic. I'm not the sharpest pencil in the pack. But how complicated are the Beatitudes, how hard is it to interpret 'what you do to the least person you do to me?' Let's put Christ's actual words and example front and center in Christianity.
Thanks for your patience with me, and thanks for your bravery in considering these words. Christian teaching IS scary, but there's no such thing as courage if you're not scared. Blessings.
Posted by: Paul Hetzler | December 11, 2007 12:11 PM
It's thrilling to see how my statements have stirred up a ferment of discussion on this blog.
Paul, I still think that you are reading too much into Jesus' words. He did not strike down "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," but corrected a false interpretation of it that was current in 1st century Palestinian Judaism. I don't believe that Christ came with a new standard that was higher than the old: he was the fulfillment of the old standard, rendering parts of it defunct, such as the ceremonial laws. He constantly refers back to the Old Testament, indeed, he seems to be steeped in its teachings.
Bruce :(
Never having preached on street corners, I can't empathize with you; and never having introduced a conversation with a non-Christian by saying "you know what? You're going to hell and Christ's gonna come back and kick all your arses!" I'm mystified by your comment. I am amillenial in my understanding of eschatology, but I was frustrated by Wallis' appropriation of Isaiah's language for his own political purposes. It fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of the text.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 11, 2007 1:35 PM
Hey Ben, nice to hear a more human tone in these latest comments. Keep it up.
Posted by: Bruce | December 11, 2007 2:34 PM
"You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke." (Ex 21:24-25)
This ancient code of conduct, today frequently called Hammurabi's code or law, is known to have been common to many ancient peoples on all continents. The misinterpretation to which you refer is that people were taking it to mean you MUST take an eye for an eye, etc. The intention of the code was to keep people from exacting in vengeance more than was taken from them, not to prescribe that they must do so. Rabbis in 1st century Palestine were kept busy correcting this error; it was a perennial problem. However, Jesus did not correct this misinterpretation; rather he set forth a new paradigm:
"You have learnt how it was said: Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But I say this to you: Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone makes you go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away." (Mt, 5:38-42)
Barbara, thank you; beautiful! Rich, and others, thank you also. Really neat to read what loving hearts brings forth. Did you know that the root of courage is coeur, heart?
May not make it back for a while; blessings.
Posted by: Paul Hetzler | December 11, 2007 4:31 PM
I'm reminded of a Wizard of Id cartoon. A courtier comes up to the king and says something like "why are you taxing the peasants to spend billions on weapons, when they don't have enough money for their basic needs". The answer comes, "So that I'll be ready when they call me unjust and revolt".
That's what empires do. The current US empire is more benign than some in the past, but it's still an empire. And it still steals from the poor (through unjust trade terms) to - inter alia - buy weapons to protect the rich and extend the empire.
What does it benefit a person - or a country - if he gain the whole world but loses his soul?
Mark
Posted by: Mark | December 11, 2007 11:54 PM
RE “eye for eye” Does this mean that justice should be uniform no matter whom or what you are and deep your pockets are?
I wonder if there is a need for the courts to recognize this and perhaps limit the resources which can be used by each side in trials to that of the person / entity that has the least resources. This would be much better for civil cases between widely mismatched groups.
Lot more money to be invested in R&D etc, few less bankruptcies and perhaps a few less poor in jail?
This would be a radical approach, and would be a solution to the use of legal threats to prevent criticism etc.
Consider the MacDonald’s defamation case in Brittan a few years ago against some penniless protesters, which MacDonald’s won, but lost the war in the people’s minds.
Ideal world??!
Likewise gunboat diplomacy done with bombs from 10,000 meters or missiles from 100 - 1000 k, may maintain your dominance, but does not make good friends. A good diplomatic presence can do more in peace time and keep the peace provided that unjust inequity is recognised and dealt with. It normally much costs less, and often trade in improved. However there is not the pork barrelling associated with industry for defence contracts or political influence by placing bases in politically receptive sites. Diplomats do not make much news unless there is a diaster, and then often for the wrong reasons.
Posted by: john holmes | December 11, 2007 11:55 PM
Thank you, Wolverine. And your reply Ross. What do I see as right-wing? The past government in South Africa, and the pre-1980 government in Rhodesia, tried to hold on to power with a minority, but uphold their (European) standards of living for themselves, while denying the rest, 75% or more of the people, the right to vote, and the opportunity to achieve basic levels provision for life.
When a government produces figures that show how strong the economy is and that the economy is booming, but fails to say or respond to the fact that more and more people are struggling for the basics of life, then that is not good government. One family with $20,000 per year and another with $80,000 does not make an average of $50,000 - when it comes to the essentials of living. When the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, that is no recipe for security, or stability... locally, or internationally. It will be seen for what it is: greed in action! And it will be resisted! (That is not to say the force opposing our greed is right, just because they oppose what we say we stand for).
Where is our voice - and love in action - across the street, across town, or across borders, when we uphold ourselves as Christians, but don't live it? Live simply - that others may simply live!
Posted by: Peter C | December 12, 2007 12:57 AM
Thank you for contributing, Paul. I like the example of the law of love over laws of man.
Eric, I don't think we struggle against all odds to come into this world, to then wait till we leave these bodies to then gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
So how do we enter in? Enter into the gates with thanksgiving, and into the courts with praise, be thankful and bless the name of the Lord.
In learning to love beyond self, we learn to truly love, even ourselves.
In giving fear to the Lord, love transforms it into trust, that we may live a day at a time.
Just as we are not the body, mind is a tool for transcendence. Beware those who think it's who we are; it has dungeons.
Eric, I think Jesus never left us, and returns the same way he appears to leave; through the clouds in our mind.
Remember, the veil was torn in two!
He asks us to re member him. I take it for more than a ritual.
Posted by: Barbara | December 12, 2007 3:44 AM
Eric, you asked about linear thinking.
Just as the world is not flat, and space is curved, time is more cyclical.
As we are not these bodies, thinking which assumes we are can be limited. Though as a woman I can tell you, I do think differently by nature. I think this is mostly because I don't separate or ignore Spirit in the process.
In patriarchal concepts, God gets effeninated. (It's the opposite of emasculated.) Ignorance is preferred to Wisdom and it SEEMS right. Yet Jesus says Wisdom is his mother.
How long will we dis our mother?
Posted by: Barbara | December 12, 2007 3:59 AM
Sometimes I think the "Left Behind" apocalyptics' own lives are so one-dimensional, hopeless and contracted that they secretly yearn for death.
Few Christians are aware that--like many scholars and theologians who came before and after them-- Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley had strong and serious misgivings about the Book of Revelation being included in the New Testament canon.
Let us not forget we are Christians.
Why else would we declare Jesus of Nazareth as the divine Son of God on earth? The God incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth rises above the all-too-human tendencies to turn toward redemptive violence and apocalyptic revenge fantasies.
Posted by: james warren | December 12, 2007 9:27 AM
Radicals want us dead.
Not because of what we do, but because of who we are.
How can you throw money at that problem?
Posted by: George | December 12, 2007 9:51 AM
I think our horrendous welfare "reform" policies speak volumes about America's attitudes toward injustice/poverty. We chose to demonize our own poor
because we needed an excuse not to help them. If we can turn our backs on those in our own communities,
why would be be expected to help (much less, empathize with) anyone else?
Who would have thought we'd live to see a day when the American people complained about "compassion fatigue"? In our culture, we're raised to compete, not cooperate. We care about winning, not about the common good.
Posted by: DHFabian | December 12, 2007 10:13 AM
Peter C - Wolverine might have other thoughts on this, but there wasn't much "right-wing" about those governments you mentioned in S. Africa and Rhodesia. If you think of policies that are the basis of right-of-center thinking - low taxes, individual freedom, deregulation, economic liberalism, weak central governmen, etc - they don't really apply to those governments. Denying a large segment of the population the ability to choose their leaders doesn't make a government "right-wing". In the modern era, this oppression has been found just as frequently, if not more so, in left-wing and Communist governments.
You can make the arguement if you want that the features of right-of-center thinking I listed above will result in the calamities you described in your comment, but that's not what was going on in Africa.
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 10:23 AM
Looks like we're getting into games of semantics, Eric. Where I come from, the sort of neoliberal marketism that you describe is just one of several, often mutually contradictory values that define the right wing. Rightwingers also tend to want big government when it comes to the military. They tend to value patriotism in a rather unthinking way. They also often hold socially conservative views that conflict seriously with the rhetoric of "individual freedom".
But "right" and "left" are just words, so we could stick with your definition, instead - though we'd then probably have to say that the Bush administration are a bunch of crypto-communists.
I guess I still use the terms left and right, but I'm not sure they're all that useful any longer.
Mark
Posted by: Mark | December 12, 2007 10:56 AM
Radicals want us dead.
Not because of what we do, but because of who we are.
Of all the lies perpetrated by the current administration, this is probably the most egregious, because it excuses us from self-examination (as in taking the log out of our eye).
The radicals oppose us precisely because of the things we have done. Read Osama bin Laden's manifesto. It's clear why he opposes us, and it has nothing to do with who we are, or our freedoms, or our democratic systems. As bin Laden said, if that were true, why didn't he attack Sweden?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 12, 2007 11:56 AM
Mark - While I could quibble with some of your descriptions of what makes one "right-wing", your larger point is correct that there are inconsistencies in the beliefs of some of those on the right (just like those on the left). But my point to Peter C. was primarily about S. Africa and Rhodesia. There was little about those governments that could be called "right-wing" than couldn't also be called "left-wing" if one wanted to. In his mind, it appeared that "oppressive" meant "right-wing", which is silly.
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 12:03 PM
Maybe a peaceful world IS the return of Christ, as he steals into our hearts and all eyes are opened.
To disregard the potential of mankind is irresponsible. We can make a better world, and not leave it up to the great rescuer to come riding over the hill like the end of some weak movie.
It's an evil world, but no man is evil, only confused.
Posted by: Jim Downing | December 12, 2007 3:19 PM
Eric:
S. Africa and Rhodesia. There was little about those governments that could be called "right-wing" than couldn't also be called "left-wing" if one wanted to.
(1) A governing philosophy based on privilege for a minority. Yes, the USSR did this too, but it wasn't part of their official ideology.
(2) A doctrine of racial superiority. Opposed throughout the world by socialists, whether from authoritarian or libertarian strands. One of the key opponents being the South African Communist Party.
(3) A strongly nationalist ideology. Yes, there have been plenty of socialist leaders who have used nationalism too, but they haven't put it anything like as close to the core of their belief system.
(4) An acceptance of a market economy, modified only for the benefit of the state and the privileged, certainly not for the benefit of the poor and underprivileged.
Is that enough?
Mark
Posted by: Mark | December 12, 2007 5:48 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?