Saturday, November 06, 2004
I've decide to voice some opinions of mine. Recently I have been uncharacteristically interested in politics and I have decided to stop that once again. (There is an art historical analysis of some of the particular contemporary political process underway/such as blog color schemes and so forth, but in any case...)
Many people I know are such staunch liberals who just absolutely hate Bush. But the reasons that they have given me seem to be a bit odd, or, at least, not relevant. There has been very little cogent analysis of the war in Iraq: the hawks' argument for attack (i.e., the propagation of democracy at large and America's responsibility to the world at large, that is, aside from terrorism) is difficult to refute. The only thing that is certain about the war is that it is poorly executed. It is unclear to me what explicit backstage agenda the hawks would have had (i.e., is it really conceivable that they started a whole war because of oil? Now, if you are sentimental and view all republicans as devils, then, perhaps.) But rational thinking tells us that the reason the current strategy was pursued was because the DC think tank conservatives had all along this idea of the "new world order", which, if not directly linked to Christianity per se, at least is linked to American hegemony in morality.
The question then becomes, is it all right to push American values as far as we can? That is, is it reasonable to claim that because we believe that freedom and equality are universal things, we therefore are in every way justified to protect this way of thinking with force? It's very hard for even a liberal who is against the war to say NO to that. And I dare you to produce a consistent argument against the war if you hold on to this undying doctrine of the forefathers.
For a postmodernist, however, the question becomes almost trivial. American moralism (or any moral philosophy) per se cannot possibly be justified universally: it is subject to deconstuction and deconstituiton which would tease out the elements of commercialism, Orientalistic sensationalism and other various (most likely, artificially constructed) prejudices. To advocate American "freedom and equality" (which is nothing but a amorphous construct) without a profound skepticism of its universal applicability is the reason why liberals cannot possibly sell the anti-war sentiments to the public. (Well, they probably cannot even sell it to themselves, because most likely they (as in, the emotional preppie activist liberals) are more in tune with these constructs than conservatives.)
Along the same lines, most people who voted Bush are not "stupid". (The Mirror's headline is a bit ill defined and ill supported.) They just don't have as much conscience as the Kerry voters. It is an irony that the Christians don't have as much conscience as the non-Christians, but it is reasonable, in the sense that religions in the end have to do with one's OWN sprirtuality. Futhermore, Bush is not that bad for the rich and/or bright (Gary Becker:education=human capital=money). He works for you. So, instead of bitching constantly about Bush, even a liberal ought to consider ways he can take advantage of the situation. Who cares about abortion (if you are careful), who cares about gays (as long as you aren't one), who cares about civil liberties (as long as you live on the coast). If you have capital, you have everything.
Many people I know are such staunch liberals who just absolutely hate Bush. But the reasons that they have given me seem to be a bit odd, or, at least, not relevant. There has been very little cogent analysis of the war in Iraq: the hawks' argument for attack (i.e., the propagation of democracy at large and America's responsibility to the world at large, that is, aside from terrorism) is difficult to refute. The only thing that is certain about the war is that it is poorly executed. It is unclear to me what explicit backstage agenda the hawks would have had (i.e., is it really conceivable that they started a whole war because of oil? Now, if you are sentimental and view all republicans as devils, then, perhaps.) But rational thinking tells us that the reason the current strategy was pursued was because the DC think tank conservatives had all along this idea of the "new world order", which, if not directly linked to Christianity per se, at least is linked to American hegemony in morality.
The question then becomes, is it all right to push American values as far as we can? That is, is it reasonable to claim that because we believe that freedom and equality are universal things, we therefore are in every way justified to protect this way of thinking with force? It's very hard for even a liberal who is against the war to say NO to that. And I dare you to produce a consistent argument against the war if you hold on to this undying doctrine of the forefathers.
For a postmodernist, however, the question becomes almost trivial. American moralism (or any moral philosophy) per se cannot possibly be justified universally: it is subject to deconstuction and deconstituiton which would tease out the elements of commercialism, Orientalistic sensationalism and other various (most likely, artificially constructed) prejudices. To advocate American "freedom and equality" (which is nothing but a amorphous construct) without a profound skepticism of its universal applicability is the reason why liberals cannot possibly sell the anti-war sentiments to the public. (Well, they probably cannot even sell it to themselves, because most likely they (as in, the emotional preppie activist liberals) are more in tune with these constructs than conservatives.)
Along the same lines, most people who voted Bush are not "stupid". (The Mirror's headline is a bit ill defined and ill supported.) They just don't have as much conscience as the Kerry voters. It is an irony that the Christians don't have as much conscience as the non-Christians, but it is reasonable, in the sense that religions in the end have to do with one's OWN sprirtuality. Futhermore, Bush is not that bad for the rich and/or bright (Gary Becker:education=human capital=money). He works for you. So, instead of bitching constantly about Bush, even a liberal ought to consider ways he can take advantage of the situation. Who cares about abortion (if you are careful), who cares about gays (as long as you aren't one), who cares about civil liberties (as long as you live on the coast). If you have capital, you have everything.
