|
|---|
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Idiots on Parade: Jonah Goldberg
Half empty? Half full?What happens when people find their way into public positions by way of nepotism? You might call it idiots on parade. Exhibit #1 (of many possible) is Jonah Goldberg. That is, the Jonah Goldberg who writes for the National Review and is a mouthpiece at the American Enterprise Institute, having exploited his mom's various connections to land cushy jobs in the world of right-wing propaganda. (His mom being up to her elbows in the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco.)
In any case, late last week Jonah published this Op-Ed in The Chicago Tribune. In it he essentially wishes someone - Julian Assange, pooh bah at Wikileaks - dead for speaking in ways that poor stupid Jonah doesn't like. Think I'm making that up? Here is Jonah's opening line: "I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead?" If only poor stupid Jonah were not so incredibly dim I might think he were playing at irony. But since he can barely manage coherence or consistency that seems unlikely. In fact, he himself assures us that no irony is involved here: "So again, I ask: Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago? It's a serious question."
Jonah, master of the genre called reactionary hyperbole, initially insists: "WikiLeaks is easily among the most significant and well-publicized breaches of American national security since the Rosenbergs gave the Soviets the bomb." But ultimately he comes round to the view that the Wikileaks folks actually make the right-wing case: "Indeed, most of the documents from WikiLeaks debunk the vast majority of conspiracy theories that fueled so much idiocy on the left for the last decade. No sinister plots involving Halliburton or Israel have been exposed — because they only existed in the fevered fantasies of some coffee-shop dissidents." Jonah, being himself a coffee-shop war-monger, must have been keeping an eye on those sitting on adjoining couches.
I am not at all sure what the Wikileaks documents have to say about conspiracies of any sort. I have not read any of "thousands upon thousands of classified documents from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq" that Wikileaks published last week. And despite his assurance about what "most of the documents" say, I doubt poor stupid Jonah has either. (According to The Guardian, the latest Wikileaks revelations consist in roughly 400,000 documents. When I say poor stupid Jonah practices hyperbole I mean to point out that he has not even run eyes over "most" of the documents.) My understanding is that the documents largely are field reports about specific encounters between U.S. troops, Iraqi civilians and, usually, Iraqi military personnel - usually these are reports of the what our allies were doing to the civilians, at our behest, and why the U.S. personnel were going to do nothing about it. I also understand that failing to prevent or report war crimes by proxy is itself a war crime. But who am I to say? And I also understand that the documents Wikileaks released have had names and other details redacted so that Jonah's crocodile tears about how our poor Iraqi and Afghani collaborators are at risk are pretty much totally irrelevant. Of course, acknowledging any of that would deprive poor stupid Jonah of the chance to show how really, really tough he is. What a pathetic joke. If you want some measured responses to the Wikileaks revelations look here; they are much less entertaining than Jonah because none of these folks wishes Julian Assange dead.
The folks at The Tribune should be ashamed. This essay is drivel. I don't like it. But while I will call Jonah Goldberg a buffoon, I don't wish him dead.
Priest Denies Synod's Political Tone
.- The Synod for the Middle East, a historic gathering of the region's bishops, concluded October 24, amid controversy over alleged bias in its concluding message. One expert on the region told CNA that the document reflected pastoral needs, not a political agenda.
The bishops' concluding “Message to the People of God” criticized Israel in detail, but omitted most of the criticisms made against Islamic governments during the synod. Some observers took remarks about using religion to “justify injustices” as a blanket rebuke of Israel, a charge participants denied.
Shortly after his return from Rome, synod participant Monsignor Robert Stern, secretary general of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association. He spoke with CNA about some of the considerations that shaped the synod's concluding message.
“The synod really didn't have a political focus at all,” Msgr. Stern said, recalling that its main purposes were to strengthen bonds between diverse groups of Catholics, and to ensure a continuing Middle Eastern Christian presence and witness.
As such, he said, the synod's final message did not contain “the same degree of detail about every situation where Christians have difficulties in the Middle East.” Rather, he said, the message reflected “two major concerns” that took priority as “the more compelling matters,” Palestine and Iraq. Migration has greatly diminished both regions' Christian populations in recent years.
In this context, he said, the bishops' choices of emphasis and restraint --which could appear to focus on Israel's treatment of Palestine, while treading lightly with Islamic regimes-- should not be interpreted as political statements, but as expressions of their pastoral priorities, and suggestions toward peace.
“They did list out several of the issues that are raised by (Muslim and Christian) Palestinians,” the monsignor said, noting that all of the specific criticisms of Israel were ongoing “issues of concern for the Christians who live in Palestine.” The synod fathers, he recalled, “also mentioned being conscious of the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live” because of violence from some Palestinians.
Monsignor Stern also acknowledged that fear for the safety of Christians in some Muslim countries may have prompted the synod fathers to moderate their comments. This was, he said, a “prudential judgment,” since Christians throughout the region can suffer consequences of their leaders' remarks.
“Most of these bishops come from ... places where they're a very small minority, they're bishops of a very small community, and they feel a lot of social pressure living in an Islamic world,” he observed. “A lot of them are in politically very uncertain circumstances-- where they're at risk, and their people are at risk. So, they don't have quite so open and expansive of a way of talking about the situation.”
“Just the experience for them to come to Rome, and talk to one another, and experience a kind of free ambiance where anything can be said ... was a very powerful experience for them-- to have solidarity, to be gathered around the Pope, and to be able to reflect.”
He said that the Middle Eastern bishops' “Message to the People of God,” whatever its possible limitations might be, was a historic and crucial statement-- giving guidance to communities whose decisions in the near future could make the difference between their survival or disappearance.
“The whole thrust of it is saying, 'What's our ... situation in the Middle East, and what do we want to say to our people here, or our people abroad? How do we stick together as Catholics? ... How do we deal with our brothers and fellow citizens, the Muslims and Jews?'”
Scientific Images: Prize-Winning Snow Flakes
And the 2010 Lennart Nilsson Award (Recognizing Extraordinary Image Makers in Science) goes to CalTach Physicist Kenneth Libbrecht. He makes pictures of snowflakes. I figured it would be difficult to make any connection between his photographs and politics; then I saw the stamps. Not only are they official postage, but they have the standard distributive politics and familiar foreign policy implications at work - one flake each from Alaska and Michigan with the other two being Canadian. Can you identify which ones?And, of course, the Europeans had to get on on the act .... These are Austrian stamps:
The Guardian Anoints Top Ten ...
We are Making a New World (1918)by Paul Nash - © Imperial War Museum.
. . . British Art Works About War. You can find the story, with links to most of the works, here. Their list includes the Nash painting.
“The End of Social Housing 1945-2010”
Picture is from the front page of Friday’s “Inside Housing” magazine. Its grim conclusion is that the ConDems have decided to end Social Housing.
To be clear this is about the ending of a key plank of the welfare state, it is about the end of all Social Housing whether provided by Councils or Housing Associations. I don’t think that people generally have “got this” yet.
Quite rightly they have been distracted at the plans to “Kosovo” style cleanse the poor out of middle class Britain.
For much of the 20th century, all British governments, Labour and Tory, provided direct financial support to build social housing for working people, the elderly and the vulnerable. This government has decided that it will not be doing so any more.
There is some money set aside for existing commitments but once this is spent any new homes for rent will only be allowed to be built if they charge tenants 80% of market rents. They also will lose their security of tenure. What this will mean according to Inside Housing is that an average working family of three will pay £140 more per week (note per week) than they would currently. This is not social housing anymore.
Ordinary working families will not be able to afford to live in such “housing” and will seek cheaper and smaller housing in privately owned slums and ghettos.
Unemployed tenants will fall into arrears due to housing benefit cuts and will face eviction; they will be held to be “intentionally homeless” and be forced to move into privately owned slums and ghettos.
Ironically the foundation of the Welfare State was laid by Liberal, William Beveridge. One of the “5 Giants” it was created to tackle was “squalor”. We are about to turn full circle.
Does anyone in this government “get it” either?
"The future of our schools" TUC conference Sat 27 Nov
"What do government policies on schools mean for our children and communities?
What are the long-term implications of giving more schools greater autonomy - improved schooling for all or a two-tier system?
Does the focus on parental choice empower the majority of families?
What do academies and free schools mean for teachers and other education professionals?
This conference will consider these questions and hear a range of views on the future of our schools.
The event is based around panel discussions and workshops so that participants can share their experiences and opinions with others.
The event is for everyone with an interest in the future of our schools, including parents, pupils, school governors, school staff, trade unionists, local authority officials, academics and policy advisors.
To register for this free event please complete this online form: www.tuc.org.uk/futureschoolsreg
Let your friends and colleagues know you are attending this event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160098134017914"
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Terrorism - American "Christian" Style
Members of the Ku Klux Klan participate in a cross lightingceremony at a Klansman's home in Warrenville, S.C., Saturday.
KKK Imperial Wizard Duwayne Johnson said it was the first
public cross lighting in 50 years. Photograph © Reuters.
__________
P.S.: Duwayne is no relation!
P.S.: Duwayne is no relation!
Dalits Bravely Embrace Buddhism.
Hundreds of Dalits belonging to Chettipulam, a village near Vedaranyam in Nagapattinam district are planning to embrace Buddhism on December 6, the death anniversary of B R Ambedkar. During September 2009, the CPI(M) had alleged that the Dalits were not being allowed entry into the temple by the villagers. The party organised temple entry agitations twice - on Sep 30,and Oct 14 of that year.James: I have been watching with interest the continued phenomena of Dalits converting to Buddhism since the revered Dalit Dr. B R Ambedkar converted giving Dalits a way out of the cruel label of "untouchable." In the Hindu caste system Dalits or "untouchables" are considered the lowest of the level of human being. The castes system was officially abolished with the drafting of the Indian Constitution but the tradition is still stubbornly held to by all too many Indians and the discriminatory suffering continues.
Traditionally Dalits were forced into the "impure" professions of: trash collectors, butchering, animal carcass removal and waste clean-up. They are sometimes still banned from entering temples because of their "impure" status. This combined with the political rights movement by Ambedkar has been the fuel that has created and perpetuates the mass conversions of Dalits to Buddhism (to read more about the political and social reality of the caste system, click here). This is all a cursory description, of course, of the very complex nature of the Dalits place in Indian society.
Buddhism was revolutionary and a bit rebellious at the time of its birth in Indian society (and still somewhat today) as it challenges and denies the existence of the caste levels. Hinduism teaches a fatalistic approach to life, whereas, Buddhism approaches it from the aspect of choice. In other words, there is a way out in this life from our present circumstances. Buddha's famous declaration on the matter was, "Birth does not make one a priest or an outcast. Behavior makes one either a priest or an outcast." Buddha himself was born into the warrior caste in ancient India.
Indeed Buddha believed that one's past lives were but one aspect to what determined who we are as a person in this present life. However, unlike the Hindus he taught that we can change this through our actions in this life. We aren't segregated into a less equal status for life simply for being born into a certain family. The caste system doesn't allow for advancement or change in one's existence in this life, and seeing how there are virtuous and less virtuous people in all the castes points more toward Buddha's theory that our personalities are shaped more by our actions than by birth outcome.
In the face of all this I have wondered what tradition of Buddhism are these new Buddhists embracing. As it turns out, their own. Theirs is often an ecclectic form of the Dharma that is based upon the traditional Theravada tradition but borrows as well from Mahayana and Vajrayana. They are very socially engaged Buddhists stemming from their movements political campaign for greater rights in their homeland of India (SOURCE: Queen, Christopher S. and Sallie B. King: Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist liberation movements in Asia: NY 1996: 47ff. u.A.). The eclectic nature and socially engaged focus of these Buddhists is shared within the emerging western, Buddhist cultures, and is in part why I am so interested in its emergence in modern Indian society. May all Dalits find the way out of their suffering -- as may all of us.
~Peace to all beings~
Labour Conference 2010: Friends of India reception
This is a picture of Newham delegates and visitors (I'm hiding in the back row between flags) with the India High Commissioner, his Excellency, Mr Nalin Surie, shaking hands with Chair of LFI Barry Gardiner MP.
This was a really good event. Loads (and loads) of MP's turned up to give short speeches.
This of course had nothing to do with the Shadow cabinet elections (as many of them freely acknowledged). Click on picture to bring up detail.
London UNISON 1st Health Brigade's: Lean Green Recruiting Machine
Gracie, Debbie, Micky and Chong recruited over 200 UNISON members at this one event.
They are well on their way to forming a 2nd Health Brigade in Greater London UNISON region!
Well done comrades!
Onwards and forwards.
John's Autumn Watch
Off message but last weekend I went for a marvellous Autumnal walk in the Chilterns. It is apparently a particularly "bountiful" season this year with lots of fruit and berries. Thanks to the cold winter last year which killed off fungi and pests with a warm but showery summer. Double click photos to bring up detail.In the weak sunshine and long shadows the trees are starting to change colours. It had rained the day before and there was that lovely wet, musty muddy smell in the woods.
There were some huge birds of prey floating up high looking for dinner and a very disdainful small deer (left - Munjac?) who hopped away like a rabbit.
The walk was (number 15) "Great Hampden and Little Hampden". There were simply superb views all along the route. It was only 6.5 miles and while up and down there was nothing too strenuos.
There was a little bit of history at Hampden House which is the site (right) of the home of John Hampden, the leading Parliamentarian whose refusal to pay Ship Tax in 1641 was one of the triggers of the English Civil War. See - the British if pushed too far can be rebellious! (not that Revolution did poor John much good)The rolling hills and beech woods of the Chilterns are deservedly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and only a few miles from London. It can get very crowded in the more popular spots but this walk was quiet and very peaceful. Recommended.
The Middle East: A Catholic Perspective
This article comes from Chiesa.
It is from a few weeks ago, but the perspective is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------
Christians in the Middle East. Crushed between Islam & Israel
ROME, October 19, 2010 – The special synod for the Middle East that has been underway at the Vatican for ten days is shedding light on a segment of the Christian world in dramatic movement, in several directions and with an uncertain future.
The exodus of Christians from those lands is an important part of this movement. But it is not a new phenomenon. During the first half of the twentieth century, the extermination and expulsion from Turkey of the Armenians, and then the Greeks, were of colossal proportions. Today the exodus continues from several places, and in different degrees. The fact is that in comparison with the twelve million faithful of the ancient Eastern Churches who today live between Egypt and Iran, there are now about seven million living elsewhere.
For many decades there have been more Armenians in the diaspora than in their native land. The Maronite Lebanese have dioceses for their emigrants in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia. The Syriac Orthodox have an eparchy in Sweden. The Iraqis have created a "Chaldean Town" in the city of Detroit. Most of the Christian emigrants from Bethlehem are going to Chile.
At the same time, however, an inverse movement is also underway in the Middle East. On the Arabian Peninsula alone – according to statements at the synod from the two apostolic vicars of the region, Paul Hinder and Camillo Ballin – three million Catholics have already come from abroad seeking jobs, most of them from the Philippines and India.
The Arab countries of the Gulf "have a great need for manual labor," explained the Syro-Malabar Indian bishop Bosco Puthur, from whose region 430,000 people have departed. But what awaits these emigrants is very bitter, if measured according to religious and civil liberties. The archbishop of Addis Ababa, Berhaneyesus Demerew Souraphiel, said that the thousands of women who leave Ethiopia for the Middle East each year, to work as maids, in order to obtain entry visas "change their Christian names to Muslim names, and dress as Muslims, being indirectly forced to renounce their roots," and in any case go to meet a life of "exploitation and abuse."
In describing the living conditions of Christians in Muslim countries in the Middle East, the bishops used understandably prudent words. With a few exceptions.
One of the most unvarnished was the representative in Jordan for the patriarchate of the Iraqi Chaldeans. He said that there is "a deliberate campaign to drive out the Christians. There are Satanic plans by extremist fundamentalist groups against Christians not only in Iraq, but in all the Middle East."
The Iranian Thomas Meram, archbishop of Urmya of the Chaldeans, did not hesitate to quote the psalm of David: "For you we are massacred every day." And he continued: "Every day Christians hear it said, from the loudspeakers, from the television, from the newspapers, that they are infidels, and for this reason they are treated as second-class citizens."
Entirely the opposite of what was asserted at the assembly that same day, Thursday, October 14, by Iranian ayatollah Seyed Mostafa Mohaghegh Ahmadabadi, a guest of the synod, according to whom "in many Islamic countries, above all in Iran, the Christians live side by side in peace with their Muslim brothers. They enjoy all the legal rights of any other citizen, and exercise their religious practices freely."
But the synod is more than a simple recognition of the living conditions of Christians in the Middle East.
From the debate there have emerged critical judgments on the Catholic Church in those countries, and proposals for change.
DIVIDED CHRISTIANS
A first critical judgment concerns the lack of unity in the Catholic Church in the Middle East.
The five great traditions on which it draws – Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine – and the even more numerous rites in which it is structured often produce division, misunderstandings, and isolation, instead of mutual enrichment.
"An ethnic and nationalist Church is against the work of the Holy Spirit," warned the Chaldean Iranian archbishop of Tehran, Ramzi Garmou.
And he had reasons to say so. The Coptic Egyptian bishop of Assiut, Kyrillos William, lashed out in the assembly against his Latin rite confreres, because, by also celebrating their liturgies in Arabic, "they attract our faithful and separate them from our Church."
The Greek-Melkite bishop of Australia, Issam John Darwich, also complained about the "growing intolerance among the Eastern Catholic Churches." And he gave the example of "the sad situation of Lebanon, where every Church seems interested in obtaining political benefits for itself, and more than the other Churches."
In effect, Lebanon is indeed a country in which Christians enjoy more freedoms than in other countries of the Middle East, but it was also described this way at the synod by one of its Greek-Melkite bishops, Georges Nicholas Haddad:
"Freedom of religion and of conscience remains the privilege of the 18 historically recognized communities (12 Christian, 4 Muslim, one Druze, and one Jewish). Anyone who is not part of these is excluded from any right to the exercise of his liberties. Any attempt characterized by proselytism on the part of one or another community can prompt extreme and sometimes violent reactions. Every conversion is perceived as a heavy blow inflicted on the community of origin of the convert, and constitutes a social rupture."
Muhammad Al-Sammak, an adviser to the Grand Mufti of Lebanon and another Muslim figure invited to speak at the synod, did not say anything much different when he stated – before the assembly – that "the Christian presence in the East is a necessity both for Christians and for Muslims" and – outside of the assembly, in a press conference – that "belief is a matter of conscience, but when changing religion also means changing 'sides', it becomes an act of betrayal of the state, and it must be treated as such."
Against this background, numerous voices have been raised at the synod to call for more unity among the Catholic Churches in the region, and between these and the Orthodox Churches and Protestant confessions.
In particular, a proposal has been made to arrange as soon as possible a common date for the celebration of Easter.
Some have urged dialogue with "enlightened" Muslims, those open to a "critical interpretation of the Qur'an" and to an "interpretation of Islamic laws in their historical context."
MORE POWER FOR THE PATRIARCHS
A second series of proposals concerned pastoral care for the faithful of the Catholic Church of the Middle East who have emigrated abroad, the role of the patriarchs, and their relationship with the see of Rome.
As a rule, the patriarchs and bishops have jurisdiction over their respective territories, not over the faithful who have emigrated to other countries. But in some cases, the latter have become more numerous than the faithful who have remained in their countries. And if they are left without care, they tend to abandon the traditions of their Churches of origin. A number of voices at the synod have therefore requested that the patriarchs and bishops be given authority over the entire flock of their faithful, wherever they may be, at home and abroad.
Together with this request, some have also asked for the freedom to send married priests for the pastoral care of the Eastern faithful in diaspora. In the West, in fact, where the clergy is celibate, the presence of married Eastern priests with pastoral duties is not permitted. But with the number of emigrants increasing, and almost all of the lower clergy of the Eastern Churches being married, it is increasingly difficult for the Eastern patriarchs and bishops to find celibate priests to send abroad for the care of their faithful. Hence the request to remove the ban.
As for the role of the patriarchates, the request has surfaced several times at the synod to "give back" to them the authority that they had in the first centuries of the Church, in relation to the pope. In particular, by giving them more autonomy in appointing local bishops. And also by associating them "ipso facto" with the college that elects the supreme pontiff, "without the necessity of receiving the Latin title of cardinal." In short, by assigning the pope "a new form of the exercise of the primacy inspired by the ecclesial forms of the first millennium," with the role of the patriarchs reinforced. All of this partly for the purpose of bringing the positions of the Catholic Church closer to those of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
ON MISSION AMONG THE MUSLIMS
A third block of proposals concerned "the need to recover the missionary aspect of the Church." A new and courageous proposal in predominantly Muslim countries, on the part of Churches that for historical reasons and motives of survival have largely closed in on themselves.
Coptic Egyptian bishop Youhannes Zakaria of Luxor said that in spite of the difficulties and the dangers, "our Church must not be afraid or ashamed, it must not hesitate to obey the mandate of Lord, who asks it to continue preaching the Gospel."
And the Chaldean Iranian archbishop of Tehran, Ramzi Garmou, delved even deeper into this need. After saying that "a new missionary impulse" is vital "to knock over the ethnic and nationalist barriers that threaten to asphyxiate and make sterile the Churches of the East," he recalled "the fundamental importance of monastic life for the renewal and reawakening of our Churches."
And he continued:
"This form of life that was born in the East, was at the origin of an extraordinary missionary expansion and an admirable witness of our churches during the first centuries. History teaches us that the bishops were chosen among the monks, that is to say men of prayer and with a deep spiritual life, having vast experience in the 'things of God.' Today, unfortunately, the choice of bishops does not obey the same criteria and we can see the results which are unfortunately not always happy ones. The bi-millenary experience of the Church confirms to us that prayer is the soul of the mission, it is thanks to this that all the activities of the church are fruitful and bear many fruits. Also, all those who participated in the reform of the church and gave back its innocent beauty and eternal youth were essentially men and women of prayer. For this reason our Lord invites us to pray without ceasing. With regret and bitterness we see that monasteries of contemplative life, source of abundant grace for the people of God, have almost disappeared in our Eastern Churches. What a great loss! How sad!"
It is easy to glimpse in these words a reflection of the theses of pope Joseph Ratzinger, according to whom the secret of good Church governance – and of its reform – is "thought illuminated by prayer."
ISRAEL A "FOREIGN BODY"?
At a synod dedicated to the Middle East, finally, it was to be expected that there would be an important reference to Israel and to the Jews.
But instead, almost no one has talked about it. The only synod father who dedicated his entire speech to it was, on October 11, the patriarchal vicar of Jerusalem for Hebrew-speaking Catholics, Jesuit Fr. David Neuhaus, who expressed his hope for more communion, in Israel, between Arabic and Hebrew-speaking Catholics.
These latter, as is known, are considered by many of their Arab confreres a foreign body. And the Holy See is not helping them, by declining to appoint a bishop to care for them.
On October 13, one of the guest speakers at the synod was Rabbi David Rosen, an adviser to the Grand Rabbi of Israel. His speech was wide-ranging, very positive, and showed great appreciation for the work of the current pope and of his predecessor.
But after him, no one at the synod has followed up on his words of dialogue between Jews and Christians.
Since the assembly has remained in almost complete silence on the issue, an even bigger impact has been made by a document circulated outside of the synod hall: a document entitled "Kairòs – A moment of truth" and blatantly anti-Israeli in its contents. In it, Israel's occupation of the Territories is called "a sin against God and humanity," and the very foundation of the Jewish state is traced back to a sense of blame on the part of the West because of the Holocaust, the healing of which is held to be behind the occupation of Palestinian land. The document ends with a call to boycott Israel.
The origin of "Kairòs" goes back a number of months. When it was made public for the first time, on December 11, 2009, in Bethlehem, the document bore the signatures of a former Latin rite patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, of Greek Orthodox archbishop Atallah Hanna (a bitter rival of the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilus III), of the Lutheran bishop of Jerusalem, Munib Younan, and of thirteen other Arab Christian representatives.
Its most active promoter was the Lutheran Younan. He was successful in involving the World Council of Churches, an association of 349 Christian denominations all over the world, with headquarters in Geneva. And in fact, when a message from the secretary general of the WCC, Olav Fykse Tveit was read at the synod, the "Kairòs" document was cited favorably.
But Younan and the other authors of the document also brought pressure, in the days following its publication, on all the leaders of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem, in order to obtain their support.
What they obtained, on December 15, 2009, was a statement of a few lines, without any explicit reference to "Kairòs," which began with these words: "We, the patriarchs and heads of the Christian Churches of Jerusalem, have heard the cry of hope that our children have raised in these difficult times that we are living through in this Holy Land. We support them."
Nothing more. But from then on, the "Kairòs" document has always been distributed with this statement at the top, as if it were a prologue, and with the signatures of all the leaders of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem, including Latin patriarch Fouad Twal and the custodian of the Holy Land, Franciscan Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, as if they were the true signatories of the entire document.
For those who know and have read the writings of Fr. Pizzaballa, his adherence to the ideas of "Kairòs" and to the boycott of Israel is simply unthinkable. And yet the Custody of the Holy Land, which he heads, contributed along with other Catholic associations like Pax Christi and with former patriarch of Jerusalem Sabbah to giving publicity to the document on October 19 in a facility owned by the Vatican, a few steps from the synod hall.
Not only that. On October 14, Maronite archbishop Edmond Farhat – former apostolic nuncio and official representative of Vatican politics – spoke at the synod.
And the judgments he expressed confirmed that for the Holy See – although it accepts the objective of two states for Jews and Palestinians – the assumption still applies that the ultimate cause of all of the evils in the Middle East is precisely that "foreign body" which is Israel.
Nuncio Farhat said:
"The Middle Eastern situation today is like a living organ that has been subject to a graft it cannot assimilate and which has no specialists capable of healing it. As a last resource, the Eastern Arab Muslim looked to the Church, believing, as he thinks himself, that it is capable of obtaining justice for him. This is not the case. He is disappointed, he is scared. His confidence has turned into frustration. He has fallen into a deep crisis. The foreign body, not accepted, gnaws at him and impedes him from taking care of his general state and development. The Middle Eastern Muslim, in the great majority of cases, is in crisis. He cannot make justice on his own. He finds any allies neither on the human nor the political level, let alone the scientific level. He is frustrated. He revolts. His frustration has resulted in revolutions, radicalism, wars, terror and the call (da’wat) to return to radical teachings (salafiyyah). Wishing to find justice on his own radicalism turns into violence. He believes there will be more of an echo if he attacks the constituted bodies. The most accessible and fragile is the Church."
If one of the intentions of the Vatican authorities was to "moderate" the intransigent aversion to Israel of the Arab Churches of the Middle East, the words of nuncio Farhat have done the opposite.
________________
The documents of the synod, on the Vatican website:
> Special Assembly for the Middle East, October 10-24, 2010
__________
The web page from which the "Kairòs" document can be downloaded, in thirteen languages:
> "Kairòs – A moment of truth"
__________
A previous article from www.chiesa expressly dedicated to Vatican policy on Israel:
> In Gaza, the Vatican Raises the White Flag (4.1.2009)
__________
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
__________
19.10.2010
The exodus of Christians from those lands is an important part of this movement. But it is not a new phenomenon. During the first half of the twentieth century, the extermination and expulsion from Turkey of the Armenians, and then the Greeks, were of colossal proportions. Today the exodus continues from several places, and in different degrees. The fact is that in comparison with the twelve million faithful of the ancient Eastern Churches who today live between Egypt and Iran, there are now about seven million living elsewhere.
For many decades there have been more Armenians in the diaspora than in their native land. The Maronite Lebanese have dioceses for their emigrants in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia. The Syriac Orthodox have an eparchy in Sweden. The Iraqis have created a "Chaldean Town" in the city of Detroit. Most of the Christian emigrants from Bethlehem are going to Chile.
At the same time, however, an inverse movement is also underway in the Middle East. On the Arabian Peninsula alone – according to statements at the synod from the two apostolic vicars of the region, Paul Hinder and Camillo Ballin – three million Catholics have already come from abroad seeking jobs, most of them from the Philippines and India.
The Arab countries of the Gulf "have a great need for manual labor," explained the Syro-Malabar Indian bishop Bosco Puthur, from whose region 430,000 people have departed. But what awaits these emigrants is very bitter, if measured according to religious and civil liberties. The archbishop of Addis Ababa, Berhaneyesus Demerew Souraphiel, said that the thousands of women who leave Ethiopia for the Middle East each year, to work as maids, in order to obtain entry visas "change their Christian names to Muslim names, and dress as Muslims, being indirectly forced to renounce their roots," and in any case go to meet a life of "exploitation and abuse."
In describing the living conditions of Christians in Muslim countries in the Middle East, the bishops used understandably prudent words. With a few exceptions.
One of the most unvarnished was the representative in Jordan for the patriarchate of the Iraqi Chaldeans. He said that there is "a deliberate campaign to drive out the Christians. There are Satanic plans by extremist fundamentalist groups against Christians not only in Iraq, but in all the Middle East."
The Iranian Thomas Meram, archbishop of Urmya of the Chaldeans, did not hesitate to quote the psalm of David: "For you we are massacred every day." And he continued: "Every day Christians hear it said, from the loudspeakers, from the television, from the newspapers, that they are infidels, and for this reason they are treated as second-class citizens."
Entirely the opposite of what was asserted at the assembly that same day, Thursday, October 14, by Iranian ayatollah Seyed Mostafa Mohaghegh Ahmadabadi, a guest of the synod, according to whom "in many Islamic countries, above all in Iran, the Christians live side by side in peace with their Muslim brothers. They enjoy all the legal rights of any other citizen, and exercise their religious practices freely."
But the synod is more than a simple recognition of the living conditions of Christians in the Middle East.
From the debate there have emerged critical judgments on the Catholic Church in those countries, and proposals for change.
DIVIDED CHRISTIANS
A first critical judgment concerns the lack of unity in the Catholic Church in the Middle East.
The five great traditions on which it draws – Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine – and the even more numerous rites in which it is structured often produce division, misunderstandings, and isolation, instead of mutual enrichment.
"An ethnic and nationalist Church is against the work of the Holy Spirit," warned the Chaldean Iranian archbishop of Tehran, Ramzi Garmou.
And he had reasons to say so. The Coptic Egyptian bishop of Assiut, Kyrillos William, lashed out in the assembly against his Latin rite confreres, because, by also celebrating their liturgies in Arabic, "they attract our faithful and separate them from our Church."
The Greek-Melkite bishop of Australia, Issam John Darwich, also complained about the "growing intolerance among the Eastern Catholic Churches." And he gave the example of "the sad situation of Lebanon, where every Church seems interested in obtaining political benefits for itself, and more than the other Churches."
In effect, Lebanon is indeed a country in which Christians enjoy more freedoms than in other countries of the Middle East, but it was also described this way at the synod by one of its Greek-Melkite bishops, Georges Nicholas Haddad:
"Freedom of religion and of conscience remains the privilege of the 18 historically recognized communities (12 Christian, 4 Muslim, one Druze, and one Jewish). Anyone who is not part of these is excluded from any right to the exercise of his liberties. Any attempt characterized by proselytism on the part of one or another community can prompt extreme and sometimes violent reactions. Every conversion is perceived as a heavy blow inflicted on the community of origin of the convert, and constitutes a social rupture."
Muhammad Al-Sammak, an adviser to the Grand Mufti of Lebanon and another Muslim figure invited to speak at the synod, did not say anything much different when he stated – before the assembly – that "the Christian presence in the East is a necessity both for Christians and for Muslims" and – outside of the assembly, in a press conference – that "belief is a matter of conscience, but when changing religion also means changing 'sides', it becomes an act of betrayal of the state, and it must be treated as such."
Against this background, numerous voices have been raised at the synod to call for more unity among the Catholic Churches in the region, and between these and the Orthodox Churches and Protestant confessions.
In particular, a proposal has been made to arrange as soon as possible a common date for the celebration of Easter.
Some have urged dialogue with "enlightened" Muslims, those open to a "critical interpretation of the Qur'an" and to an "interpretation of Islamic laws in their historical context."
MORE POWER FOR THE PATRIARCHS
A second series of proposals concerned pastoral care for the faithful of the Catholic Church of the Middle East who have emigrated abroad, the role of the patriarchs, and their relationship with the see of Rome.
As a rule, the patriarchs and bishops have jurisdiction over their respective territories, not over the faithful who have emigrated to other countries. But in some cases, the latter have become more numerous than the faithful who have remained in their countries. And if they are left without care, they tend to abandon the traditions of their Churches of origin. A number of voices at the synod have therefore requested that the patriarchs and bishops be given authority over the entire flock of their faithful, wherever they may be, at home and abroad.
Together with this request, some have also asked for the freedom to send married priests for the pastoral care of the Eastern faithful in diaspora. In the West, in fact, where the clergy is celibate, the presence of married Eastern priests with pastoral duties is not permitted. But with the number of emigrants increasing, and almost all of the lower clergy of the Eastern Churches being married, it is increasingly difficult for the Eastern patriarchs and bishops to find celibate priests to send abroad for the care of their faithful. Hence the request to remove the ban.
As for the role of the patriarchates, the request has surfaced several times at the synod to "give back" to them the authority that they had in the first centuries of the Church, in relation to the pope. In particular, by giving them more autonomy in appointing local bishops. And also by associating them "ipso facto" with the college that elects the supreme pontiff, "without the necessity of receiving the Latin title of cardinal." In short, by assigning the pope "a new form of the exercise of the primacy inspired by the ecclesial forms of the first millennium," with the role of the patriarchs reinforced. All of this partly for the purpose of bringing the positions of the Catholic Church closer to those of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
ON MISSION AMONG THE MUSLIMS
A third block of proposals concerned "the need to recover the missionary aspect of the Church." A new and courageous proposal in predominantly Muslim countries, on the part of Churches that for historical reasons and motives of survival have largely closed in on themselves.
Coptic Egyptian bishop Youhannes Zakaria of Luxor said that in spite of the difficulties and the dangers, "our Church must not be afraid or ashamed, it must not hesitate to obey the mandate of Lord, who asks it to continue preaching the Gospel."
And the Chaldean Iranian archbishop of Tehran, Ramzi Garmou, delved even deeper into this need. After saying that "a new missionary impulse" is vital "to knock over the ethnic and nationalist barriers that threaten to asphyxiate and make sterile the Churches of the East," he recalled "the fundamental importance of monastic life for the renewal and reawakening of our Churches."
And he continued:
"This form of life that was born in the East, was at the origin of an extraordinary missionary expansion and an admirable witness of our churches during the first centuries. History teaches us that the bishops were chosen among the monks, that is to say men of prayer and with a deep spiritual life, having vast experience in the 'things of God.' Today, unfortunately, the choice of bishops does not obey the same criteria and we can see the results which are unfortunately not always happy ones. The bi-millenary experience of the Church confirms to us that prayer is the soul of the mission, it is thanks to this that all the activities of the church are fruitful and bear many fruits. Also, all those who participated in the reform of the church and gave back its innocent beauty and eternal youth were essentially men and women of prayer. For this reason our Lord invites us to pray without ceasing. With regret and bitterness we see that monasteries of contemplative life, source of abundant grace for the people of God, have almost disappeared in our Eastern Churches. What a great loss! How sad!"
It is easy to glimpse in these words a reflection of the theses of pope Joseph Ratzinger, according to whom the secret of good Church governance – and of its reform – is "thought illuminated by prayer."
ISRAEL A "FOREIGN BODY"?
At a synod dedicated to the Middle East, finally, it was to be expected that there would be an important reference to Israel and to the Jews.
But instead, almost no one has talked about it. The only synod father who dedicated his entire speech to it was, on October 11, the patriarchal vicar of Jerusalem for Hebrew-speaking Catholics, Jesuit Fr. David Neuhaus, who expressed his hope for more communion, in Israel, between Arabic and Hebrew-speaking Catholics.
These latter, as is known, are considered by many of their Arab confreres a foreign body. And the Holy See is not helping them, by declining to appoint a bishop to care for them.
On October 13, one of the guest speakers at the synod was Rabbi David Rosen, an adviser to the Grand Rabbi of Israel. His speech was wide-ranging, very positive, and showed great appreciation for the work of the current pope and of his predecessor.
But after him, no one at the synod has followed up on his words of dialogue between Jews and Christians.
Since the assembly has remained in almost complete silence on the issue, an even bigger impact has been made by a document circulated outside of the synod hall: a document entitled "Kairòs – A moment of truth" and blatantly anti-Israeli in its contents. In it, Israel's occupation of the Territories is called "a sin against God and humanity," and the very foundation of the Jewish state is traced back to a sense of blame on the part of the West because of the Holocaust, the healing of which is held to be behind the occupation of Palestinian land. The document ends with a call to boycott Israel.
The origin of "Kairòs" goes back a number of months. When it was made public for the first time, on December 11, 2009, in Bethlehem, the document bore the signatures of a former Latin rite patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, of Greek Orthodox archbishop Atallah Hanna (a bitter rival of the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilus III), of the Lutheran bishop of Jerusalem, Munib Younan, and of thirteen other Arab Christian representatives.
Its most active promoter was the Lutheran Younan. He was successful in involving the World Council of Churches, an association of 349 Christian denominations all over the world, with headquarters in Geneva. And in fact, when a message from the secretary general of the WCC, Olav Fykse Tveit was read at the synod, the "Kairòs" document was cited favorably.
But Younan and the other authors of the document also brought pressure, in the days following its publication, on all the leaders of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem, in order to obtain their support.
What they obtained, on December 15, 2009, was a statement of a few lines, without any explicit reference to "Kairòs," which began with these words: "We, the patriarchs and heads of the Christian Churches of Jerusalem, have heard the cry of hope that our children have raised in these difficult times that we are living through in this Holy Land. We support them."
Nothing more. But from then on, the "Kairòs" document has always been distributed with this statement at the top, as if it were a prologue, and with the signatures of all the leaders of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem, including Latin patriarch Fouad Twal and the custodian of the Holy Land, Franciscan Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, as if they were the true signatories of the entire document.
For those who know and have read the writings of Fr. Pizzaballa, his adherence to the ideas of "Kairòs" and to the boycott of Israel is simply unthinkable. And yet the Custody of the Holy Land, which he heads, contributed along with other Catholic associations like Pax Christi and with former patriarch of Jerusalem Sabbah to giving publicity to the document on October 19 in a facility owned by the Vatican, a few steps from the synod hall.
Not only that. On October 14, Maronite archbishop Edmond Farhat – former apostolic nuncio and official representative of Vatican politics – spoke at the synod.
And the judgments he expressed confirmed that for the Holy See – although it accepts the objective of two states for Jews and Palestinians – the assumption still applies that the ultimate cause of all of the evils in the Middle East is precisely that "foreign body" which is Israel.
Nuncio Farhat said:
"The Middle Eastern situation today is like a living organ that has been subject to a graft it cannot assimilate and which has no specialists capable of healing it. As a last resource, the Eastern Arab Muslim looked to the Church, believing, as he thinks himself, that it is capable of obtaining justice for him. This is not the case. He is disappointed, he is scared. His confidence has turned into frustration. He has fallen into a deep crisis. The foreign body, not accepted, gnaws at him and impedes him from taking care of his general state and development. The Middle Eastern Muslim, in the great majority of cases, is in crisis. He cannot make justice on his own. He finds any allies neither on the human nor the political level, let alone the scientific level. He is frustrated. He revolts. His frustration has resulted in revolutions, radicalism, wars, terror and the call (da’wat) to return to radical teachings (salafiyyah). Wishing to find justice on his own radicalism turns into violence. He believes there will be more of an echo if he attacks the constituted bodies. The most accessible and fragile is the Church."
If one of the intentions of the Vatican authorities was to "moderate" the intransigent aversion to Israel of the Arab Churches of the Middle East, the words of nuncio Farhat have done the opposite.
________________
The documents of the synod, on the Vatican website:
> Special Assembly for the Middle East, October 10-24, 2010
__________
The web page from which the "Kairòs" document can be downloaded, in thirteen languages:
> "Kairòs – A moment of truth"
__________
A previous article from www.chiesa expressly dedicated to Vatican policy on Israel:
> In Gaza, the Vatican Raises the White Flag (4.1.2009)
__________
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
__________
19.10.2010
Custodian of Holy Land: Anti-Zionism a "Normal Thing"
.- Many Christians in the Middle East harbor “anti-Zionist” resentments, but those resentments are rooted political injustices and not theology, according to a top Church official in the Holy Land.
Franciscan Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa said the tensions were reflected in the recent Synod for Bishops on the Middle East, but he rejected charges that the synod was biased against Israel.
"I don't think the Synod Fathers were taken hostage by anyone," he told the Italian newspaper Il Foglio Oct. 27.
Father Pizzaballa is the Vatican-appointed custodian of the ancient Christian holy sites in Israel and Palestine. In an interview with the paper’s Vatican analyst Paolo Rodari, he responded to charges made by Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon.
Ayalon charged that the synod had become an "important forum for political attacks" and was "taken hostage by an anti-Israeli majority."
"That the Arab world might have little sympathy for Israel is evident," Father Pizzaballa said, noting that 90 percent of Christians in the Middle East are of Arab origins. He called it a "normal thing" that this sentiment might surface "in some way" during the synod’s discussions.
But the synod's final message also included condemnations of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism and a reminder that Christians must study both the New and the Old Testaments, he said.
It is "not a given," that the synod fathers of the Middle Eastern world would write these words, he said.
Father Pizzaballa also pointed out that the synod’s final message condemned all forms of racism and “Islamaphobia,” and called Jews, Muslims and Christians to greater commitment to dialogue.
While individual bishops might express their opinions on these issues, only the final message of the synod reflects the official position of the assembled Church leaders, he stressed.
The synod’s message, Father Pizzaballa said, is “not the voice of the Vatican nor the Church.” It is rather "simply the voice of the synod fathers."
The synod’s final message offered little new with respect to Israel, he added. The gathering of bishops condemned Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine and any use of God's name to justify violence. These are positions "already expressed in the past” by Church leaders, he noted.
Accusations that the synod fathers harbor an “anti-Zionist” bias are misguided. Zionism, the belief that Israel has the right to a homeland in the territory promised to the Jews in the Bible, is a “Western category,” Father Pizzaballa said. “It is a way with which the West tries to describe a situation."
"That a certain anti-Zionism might be present also among Christians in the Middle East is evident,” he said. “But this anti-Zionism, if it exists, it does not have theological foundations. It is more than anything a sentiment motivated by the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. It is a reaction to a dramatic situation and in which immediate solutions are not seen."
The issue of anti-Zionism surfaced after remarks by Melkite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros of Newton, Mass. in the concluding press conference of the synod, Oct. 23.
Archbishop Bustros said the biblical ideas of the “chosen people” and the “promised land” could not be used to justify “the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians." He added, "Sacred Scripture should not be used to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestine.”
Father Pizzaballa said the controversy reinforces the need for greater dialogue between Jews and Catholics and deeper study of the ways Scripture is interpreted in each tradition. Christians, he said, “are accustomed to making a spiritual and allegorical reading of the Scriptures and our reading does not always fit together with that of the Jews."
Friday, October 29, 2010
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson risks all to defend London Poor
Comments I made in an interview this morning to BBC London radio have been entirely taken out of context. When I said that I would rather share a cell with Slobodan Milosovic than be in the same room as David Cameron, I meant, of course that the Prime Minister has my full and unambiguous support.
It was deliberately misleading of journalists to report my comment about George Osborne being “an incompetent oik” entirely out of context, then ignoring my tribute to George as “one of the best Chancellors the country has had since May.”
As for my reported comments about the entirely reasonable, fair and welcome changes to the proles’ rent handouts, it should be patently clear to anyone with a First in Literae Humaniores from Balliol that my comparison of the reforms with “ethnic cleansing on a scale not seen since the collapse of the Yugoslavian Tourist Board” was simply an endorsement of Iain Duncan Smith’s critical faculties.
So, gosh, well, I hope that clears that up, what?" Hat tip thingy Tom Harris MP "And Another Thing"
Spelling it out: Lib Dems and the Cuts
This is the leaflet that I understand upset a few sensitive souls?
:)
hat-tip thingy Country Standard
FTSE 100 Bosses gave themselves a 55 per cent rise last year
This news that directors of the top 100 companies in the UK gave themselves (forget the utter fiction that this is decided by "independent" remuneration committees) an average rise of 55% is just a kick in the teeth to all of us.
What is worse - is that this was done in our name. Our Pension and Insurance funds will, (despite being "owned" by ordinary Brits who would if they had the choice no doubt vote to block such theft of their dividends) approve all these disgusting payments at Company AGM's.
It is the bleeding obvious that the sector cannot regulate itself due to imbalances in favour of completely selfish and sometimes utterly corrupt City interests.
We need the Government to act and allow the owners of companies to stop being ripped off by their managers. Hat Tip thingy Adam Smith
The Best Buddhist Writing 2010. A Book Review.
How would you like to have a collection of excellent Buddhist writings all in one book for your library? Well, that's exactly what Melvin McLeod and the Shambhala editors have offered up in the "The Best Buddhist Writing" series. Each year they select the cream of the crop in Buddhist essays and other writings to inspire and edify the Buddhist community. This year they have complied one of their best, and it's not simply Buddhist masters who are featured.You'll read heartfelt writings from people as diverse as a man on death row to Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh. Death row inmate Jarvis Jay Masters was a hardened criminal who has since shed those violent ways and dedicated his life to practicing the Dharma. His narration of a short visit to a hospital outside the prison walls will make you see the present moment in an entirely new way. One that will rededicate your will power to soak up every last drop of it. He writes about the ride to and from the hospital for a basic hearing check-up and how he savored each time the car he was traveling in stopped at a red light.
It gave him precious time to take in the beauty of regular life unraveling before his eyes hungry for a glimpse of an average life. How easily do we go about our day and take for granted that we can freely walk out our door at any time and go for a walk to see things that an prisoner would give anything to experience again. The simple beauty of watching the traffic lights turn from green to red was enough to make this inmate tear up with appreciation. May we all too learn to see the world in such a pure way. This is a good book if you are looking for a collection of easy to read, inspirational tales from both Buddhist masters but also average practitioners.
~Peace to all beings~
Moises Saman
A cemetery worker wraps the body of a man killed during fighting in SadrCity after washing his corpse following the Islamic tradition at the Wadi as
-Salaam cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.
Photograph © Moises Saman/ New York Times.I came across this brief interview with photojournalist Moises Saman in the Columbia Journalism Review. The pictures I've lifted here are the ones he discusses in the interview. You can find more about Saman and his work here.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
How the "Third Way" Memo Shows why "Moderates" Are As Dim as They Seem or, How to Make an Ass-Whuppin' Feel Pretty Darned Good
"The idea of a third way is simply the doctrine of the single way, accompanied by the announcement of the intention of moralizing it. . . . Such a project . . . humanization of the inevitable . . . represents little more than the disguise of a surrender." ~ Roberto Mangabeira Unger
Last Sunday The New York Times ran an Op-Ed by Ari Berman calling for the Democrats to stop cozying up to conservatives in their midst. I noted it at the time, but you can find the piece here. Unsurprisingly, conservative mouthpieces among the "big tent" - a phrase I loath - Democrats have their knickers in a knot and have begun a counterinsurgency campaign. Today The Times has reproduced a memo by Jon Cowan and Anne Kim at Third Way that purportedly takes issue with Berman. (You will guess from the quotation above what I think of calls for a "third way.") We'll let the folks from the self-proclaimed "the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement" state their case. Here is their memo. I highlight passages that need to be challenged but will do so below the text.
The Domestic Policy Program
October 29, 2010Some liberals have begun to argue that losing the House majority may ultimately be “good” for Democrats by purging the party of Blue Dogs and other moderates. As liberal commentator Ari Berman recently opined in The New York Times, “Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus.”
This small-tent strategy could not be more wrong.
Both politically and substantively, liberals need moderates. By rejecting the big-tent coalition that brought them power in the first place, the only things Democrats will accomplish are permanent minority status and the frustration of their legislative priorities. Here are three reasons liberals need moderates:
1. Liberal members need the votes of moderate colleagues to make
legislative progress.Passing legislation still takes 219 votes in the House of Representatives — a threshold Democrats can’t reach without the very moderates derided by Berman and others as “fake Democrats.”
Liberal members make up nowhere near a majority of the House. Nor do they make up a majority of the current House Democratic Caucus. The Progressive Caucus, the flagship coalition of liberals, has just 78 House members.
In fact, the Progressive Caucus comprises less than one-fifth of the House and just 30% of its 255 Democratic members. In contrast, 105 current House members are Blue Dogs, New Democrats or both. Moderates, not liberals, are the numerical base of the Democratic second (sic).
2. Liberal members need moderate voters to win and keep their seats.
According to Gallup, 42% of Americans now call themselves “conservative,” while 35% call themselves “moderate” and only 20% consider themselves “liberal.” Liberals aren’t just the smallest political constituency in America; they’re outnumbered 4 to 1 by moderates and conservatives. In no state are liberals either a majority or a plurality.
Even in Rhode Island — America’s most liberal state — moderates outnumber liberals 36% to 32%. In purple states such as Colorado, moderates outnumber liberals 33% to 27%. In Nevada, the moderate-liberal ratio is 41%-17%.
Winning moderates is the only way to overcome these numerical disadvantages, which is exactly what Democrats did in 2006 and 2008. The Congressional majority won in those years (thanks to the Schumer-Emanuel big-tent strategy liberals scorn) was a moderate, not liberal, wave involving deeply purple, if not outright red, districts.
Many seats now belonging to such moderate Democratic members as Reps. Jason Altmire, Frank Kratovil and Mike McMahon were wrested from Republican hands. Not surprisingly, 42 of the Democrats elected in the last two cycles are Blue Dogs and New Democrats, while just 14 have joined the Progressive Caucus. (And of these 14, four are also New Democrats.) Call them “fake Democrats,” but they delivered a real majority.
3. Liberals need moderates — from both parties — to forge good policy.While liberals now find it fashionable to label moderates as obstructionists of a progressive agenda, this ignores historical reality. Most of the signature pieces of progressive legislation passed in the 20th century were the products of broad, bipartisan coalitions, not liberal victories eked out over moderate and conservative opposition.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, was a bipartisan compromise reached after a 54-day filibuster in the Senate led, incidentally, by a Democrat — Georgia Senator Richard Russell. The final bill passed 73-27 after Minority Leader Everett Dirksen rounded up enough Republicans to invoke cloture.
Likewise, the Social Security Act of 1935 passed with 372 yeses in the House and 77 yeses in the Senate, while Medicare passed the House in 1965 with 307 votes in the House and 70 votes in the Senate. Politifact.com rated a longstanding liberal claim that no Republicans supported Social Security and Medicare until the very end as “false.”
According to William Galston of Brookings and Elaine Kamarck of Harvard University, Congress’s most productive period was between roughly 1929 and 1974 — a period that coincided with the existence of a broad bipartisan and moderate coalition. In their view, polarization, not moderation, is what actually leads to gridlock.
Moreover, a more ideologically diverse Democratic coalition ensures vigorous policy debates. Liberals may believe their positions represent the best choices, but many moderates have principled and legitimate policy disagreements with liberals on trade, energy, deficits, education, terrorism and other issues. Challenging often outdated liberal orthodoxies is crucial for Democrats — liberals should not be afraid to battle for their ideas or to forge sensible center-left solutions where necessary.
Conclusion
To believe a small-tent strategy can achieve a big agenda is folly. In the aftermath of expected losses next week, Democrats should reject the purity-test view that moderates are either unnecessary or destructive. Instead of shrinking the tent still further, they should redouble their efforts to expand it.
(1) The Blue Dogs and New Democrats are not moderates, they are conservatives. Think Ben Nelson. Think Bart Stupak. (Or think of any of the "honorary co-chairs" on the Third Way team.) I will return to this matter below. For now, though, it is important to note that these conservatives hardly are "fake Democrats." They are just plain old Democrats, at least as the party is presently constituted.
The problem for progressives in the U.S. is that the Democratic Party is not liberal. So, as I have noted here before, progressives should not be disappointed that Obama and his minions have somehow failed to implement "their" progressive agenda or angry that the administration has been thwarted by the so-called moderates in their efforts to implement it. The Democratic Party does not have a progressive agenda. Neither does the Obama administration.
So, my first objection is that the Third Way-ers are complicit in the bastardization of American political discourse. Call people by what they are. In this instance call the conservatives conservatives.
(2) Notice that the Third Way-ers do not actually respond to Berman. Instead they engage in the standard ruse of ideologists (I come back to that label below) ~ change the subject. Here is what Berman claimed:
"A smaller majority, minus the intraparty feuding, could benefit Democrats in two ways: first, it could enable them to devise cleaner pieces of legislation, without blatantly trading pork for votes as they did with the deals that helped sour the public on the health care bill. (As a corollary, the narrative of “Democratic infighting” would also diminish.)
Second, in the Senate, having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans’ incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law. Since President Obama’s election, more than 420 bills have cleared the House but have sat dormant in the Senate. It’s easy to forget that George W. Bush passed his controversial 2003 tax cut legislation with only 50 votes, plus Vice President Dick Cheney’s. Eternal gridlock is not inevitable unless Democrats allow it to be."
What the Third Way-ers seek to do is depict the incessant intra-party bickering among the Democrats as "vigorous policy debate." On the health care bill, however, Nelson, Stupak and their ilk did not come out and offer sound policy prescriptions and defend them with reasons and evidence. They extorted positions - extreme anti-abortion positions pushed by the Catholic Church that run contrary to the interests of women in the Democratic party - by simply threatening to withhold their votes. Confronted with that reality (and one might multiply examples nearly endlessly) the Third Way-ers would no doubt just place being pro-choice into the category of what they call "outdated liberal orthodoxies." That is fine, but let's not pretend that that is anything other than what it is - a political assertion, not a reflection of some underlying reality.
As for Berman's second point, so far as I can tell the Third Way-ers never actually confront the matter. They claim that the conservatives are necessary to make progress legislatively without acknowledging the realities that Berman notes. A huge number of bills that are dead-on-arrival at the Senate door. Not only did the Blue Dogs and New Dems not manage to get those bills over the hump in the Senate, arguably the conservative Dems in the House were able to vote for them because they anticipated that the bills would never become law.
The Third Way-ers need to read Tom Schelling. Sometimes it is a good thing, from a strategic perspective, to have fewer resources rather than more. Berman is on solid ground here. The Dems never challenged the Senate Republicans, they never called their bluff on filibusters. And they ought to have done so. A more cohesive group might've had the gumption to make the Republicans filibuster reasonable legislation and then mock them loudly in public for so doing. I am not entirely confident about that, but it is possible; and the Third Way-ers have nothing but their blinkered ideology as evidence to the contrary.
(3) Let's talk sources. And let's be blunt. Screw Politifact.com! By playing fact check lotto, here too the Third Way-ers simply continue to debase political discussion. Facts by themselves are useless. What we need to understand is the way history has moved, the causal story behind the current polarized mess in D.C..
Having said that, let's play fact check. The Third Way-ers invoke "William Galston of Brookings and Elaine Kamarck of Harvard" as though they are independent source of authority and insight. Well not only is Galston a well-known advocate of conservationism among the Dems, but the Third Way-ers somehow neglect to mention that he and his co-author are listed as "contributing authors" on the staff page at "the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement." So, invoking Bill and Elaine is sort of like saying "Yeah, and my mom agrees with me too!" As though we should care.
This brings us to the matter of causality. As I have noted here repeatedly, there is good social scientific research demonstrating that the divisiveness in American politics is due primarily to the Republicans running far and fast to the right. That, in turn, reflects the massive increase in political-economic inequality in the country (and in which the Third Way-ers have been complicit!). In other words, the Democrats have not run to the left. And the Third Way-ers want them to stand put or, better yet, move rightwards. The problem is that since the political spectrum is now so skewed in a conservative direction (at the elite level) what looks "moderate" is frankly right-wing nuttiness. The Republicans are setting the agenda and the Third Way-ers don't grasp that at all. Their rhetoric of moderation is, as Unger notes a disguise for defeat.
(4) All that raises the matter of "realism." Third Way-ers have a remarkable propensity to be patronizing - accusing those who disagree with them of insisting on a "purity test" (as though wanting to dump conservatives like Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak who are beholden to the the misogynist, homophobic Catholic Bishops is so blindly ideological?) or of hewing to "outdated liberal orthodoxies" (like equality before the law). That is why they throw up all the "facts" about the electorate and the Democratic caucus - as though those numbers are cast in stone.
What's wrong with that view? Here, in simple terms, is my answer: This is politics people! Try this: lead public opinion instead of capitulating to it! The Republicans go to great lengths to lead public opinion; indeed they shame the Democrats on that dimension. Obama did nothing on that score in his first two years. He was asleep at the wheel because he is not a progressive and is satisfied with a hodge-podge health insurance reform, mediocre, "moderate" judicial appointments, continued military adventures overseas, and so forth. The excuse is that we need to obsess about what is "realistic" - is this bill passable? is that nominee confirmable? - instead of working to make things happen. Given how much the American political spectrum has shifted to the right he Democrats are reactionary in the simple sense. They react instead of shaping an agenda. And this run to the "middle" is getting the conservative Democrats and their Third Way apologists what precisely? Apparently it is getting them an ass-whuppin' in the mid-term elections next week. It surely has gotten them not an iota of "bi-partisan" cooperation from the Republicans. Unrequited groveling and crappy policy.Well done.
Where does all that leave Berman and other progressives? In the position of saying to Third Way-ers - you conservatives need our votes too. You need them in elections and in the legislature. And we will play hardball with you. We will challenge you for leadership positions and withhold our votes if you propose ridiculous legislation. we will leave you hanging (as the unions ought to be doing to the Dems right now but are not). We will take advantage of political opportunities (as in fusion-voting states like New York) and garner support for candidates who support progressive policies but not for those who (like, for instance, Andrew Cuomo) don't. And we will argue out loud and in public when you do stupid things. That means working to mobilize demonstrations and other forms of pressure in the face of government failure to address the needs of regular people. In other words, it leaves progressives in the position of seeking to shape politics and policy rather than simply reacting to the world depicted by putative realists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
