Arthur,
I wrote the below as an answer to a Bob Herbert column called "Tiptoeing to
defeat" in yesterday's NYTimes. I didn't write it to be published
obviously considering its length but simply meant to answer what was said to
him personally. After your comment about the low volume I decided to send
it to FW as well. I sent it and it didn't get through which may mean that
your
letters are getting through but ours aren't for some reason as was mentioned
recently by Mike Hollinshead. I reformatted this and took out the
Outlook Express RTF and we will see if that works better. It isn't easier
to read but maybe it will get through. I'm afraid that much of this
political stuff has begun to feel like taking a bath in a toilet.
The basic
problem is that Republicans like to wield the same power that they do in
business and Democrats do not. Democrats have a guilt about doing such
things unless they are Republican Democrats like Bill Clinton. That guilt
is
what Mike Moore "works" in his books and movies. We would rather stay
home than take responsibility for exercizing serious power and certainly not
enjoy it the way GWB seems to. He is the quintessential athelete model
just as Reagan was as an actor. They both enjoy doing it and even though
they are mediocre at it, it doesn't take away from their sheer pleasure
at exercizing power through their business models. Is it any wonder that
Republicans treat business like Americans treat Europe in the Arts? i.e.
Business is the foundation or minor leagues. Of course the analogy doesn't
hold with real businessmen who consider business to be its own "Major
League" and the same is true for European Art which certainly considers
itself
superior and far more serious than the Americans. However.......
They seem to say that "if you can't make it in business then you don't
deserve to be a politician." The point for me is whether that is a
relevant
statement about politics and whether business or the law is truly a good
model for the unique problems in political compromise.
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Evans Harrell
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mcore
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: tiptoeing to defeat
Mr. Herbert,
I have often congratulated you on your coverage of such things as the
terrible situation in the Tulia, Texas drug situation. On the other hand,
the Republicans are very clear about:
1. United they stand, you do not hear the kind of conflict and "liberal"
sitting on both sides of the fence from the Republicans who don't care to
"understand" like these "Liberals" make a fetish of. You should seriously
read the history of the Liberal tradition since Republican complaints about
"Liberal" are pure balderdash made up by their "Gingrichian knowledge" of
economic and philosophical history. Or maybe I should just say that it is
accepted because the Media and their readers, the Average Americans, lack
knowledge of the history of that tradition. It isn't hard. Consider the
below from a rather run of the mill "Guide" series put out by Bloomsbury.
It makes the point my Father used to make that both of these honchos are
really just versions of the same Liberal coin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERALISM
Liberalism (from Latin liberalis, 'of a free man or woman') is the name
given to a diverse set of political doctrines committed to ensuring liberty
and equality for individuals, within conditions of limited and
representative government. Liberalisms, in principle, are politically
secular, and embrace philosophical rationalism and individualism.
Historically, liberalism originated in Western Europe and North America and
expressed the political aspirations of those who argued for freedom from
state and church control of thought and expression. Liberalism has always
stood for tolerance -although liberals are not thereby obliged to display
tolerance towards the illiberal, especially those who would seek to abolish
liberal arrangements. Liberalism is grounded in the belief that there is no
natural moral order which can be confidently known by states or churches;
therefore individuals must be free to pursue their own conceptions of the
good- consistent, of course, with enabling others to enjoy the same freedom.
It follows that liberals support freedom of expression, freedom of
association and freedom from governmental 'intervention' in the conduct of
private life, and that the institutions of church and state should be
separated.
These beliefs explain why liberalism and democracy are compatible although
historically liberalism has not always been associated with a democratic
philosophy. Indeed it was not until the mid-19th century, in the writings of
the French analyst Alexis de Tocqueville and the Englishman John Stuart
Mill, that liberals came to believe that democracy, individualism, liberty,
equality and the rule of law could be reconciled. However, this
reconciliation of liberalism and democracy had been anticipated in the
constitutional republican writings of French- and English-speaking authors
of the Enlightenment -notably in Rousseau's The Social Contract and in The
Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John
Jay, which helped shape the American Constitution. American liberals,
drawing upon the thought of the French philosopher Montesquieu and the
English philosopher Harrington, prescribed checks and balances, and a
separation of powers, as ways of pre- venting the potential for governments
to become despotic.
It is possible to distinguish several types of liberalism. In the first
place there has been a division between utilitarians and rights-based
liberals. Utilitarians believe that moral and political philosophy must be
based on welfare-maximizing principles: government and public policy must be
conducted according to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', on the
supposition that each person is to be treated as equally important. On this
conception the aim of liberalism is to ensure the maximum degree of
want-satisfaction, or alternatively to minimize the degree of suffering
experienced by people. The utilitarian foundations of liberalism can be
found in the writings of David Hume, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. By
contrast rights-based liberalism, associated historically with John Locke,
Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, emphasizes that individuals have (or
should have) inalienable rights or personal autonomy which should not be
transgressed by any other individuals, groups, or, most importantly, the
state even in pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number. In this
perspective, government should be based upon the consent of individuals who
contract with one another to protect their rights; and government should be
limited to the protections of these fundamental rights and to the provision
of basic services which individuals agree cannot be provided by their own
actions.
In the second place we can distinguish between classical or economic
liberals, enthusiasts for the laissez faire doctrines of Adam Smith and
David Ricardo, and new or social liberals, like T.H. Green and J.M. Keynes,
who were influenced by socialism. Economic liberals emphasize the centrality
of private property rights and the free commerce of individuals as the
foundations of a free and prosperous society; and reject governmental
intervention, except where it is absolutely necessary, on the grounds that
governmental monopolies lead to inefficiency and stagnation. Classical
liberals believe in maximizing liberty and minimizing government, and in
Adam Smith's doctrine of the 'invisible hand': if agents are left to pursue
their economic self-interest they will, unintentionally, produce the best
economic consequences. They also embrace methodological individualism.
Economic s liberals are also likely to see democracy as a threat to the
operations of a free market e society because democracy permits people e to
organize against the consequences of market competition and therefore seek
to ensure that constitutional provisions can prevent governments from
violating property rights.
New liberals or social liberals, by contrast, reject the minimalist role of
the state envisaged in classical liberalism. They have a more wide-ranging
conception of freedom, positive liberty, which rejects the classical liberal
assumption that greater government means correspondingly less freedom. They
have historically been influenced by the political theories of the
Englishman T .H. Green, which were in turn influenced by the writings of the
German philosopher Hegel, by the American educationalist John Dewey, and by
the theories of political economy developed by J.M. Keynes. Common to social
liberalism is the belief that advanced industrial society requires
substantial state intervention in order to offset distortions produced by
the free market; and a rejection of the extreme individualism which sees no
place for society, community or the state in forging the conditions
necessary for individuals to be free and equal. Social or modern liberalism
is a friend of benign big government; believing that the welfare state can
and should raise the moral and intellectual capacities of citizens, and
enable genuine equality of opportunity.
This division within what was liberalism has led classical or economic
liberals to be called 'conservatives' in English-speaking countries, while
the label of liberalism has been claimed by the new or social liberals, who
have often allied themselves with social democrats and socialists. On the
European continent, by contrast, liberalism generally retains its classical
meaning.
In contemporary political theory, liberalism is criticized by
'communitarians' for having an impoverished, atomistic conception of human
beings, which neglects the profound importance of community in shaping
individuals' capacities and morality -a criticism common to conservatives,
socialists and religious critics of liberalism. Robust defenders of
liberalism maintain in reply that it is precisely the virtue of liberalism
that it does not take for granted whatever prejudices or values may be
bestowed by tradition or communities, but rather requires that they be
capable of rational justification. This rationalist impulse explains why
liberals are so often in the vanguard of movements to reform societies and
states. Brendan O'Leary (Bloomsbury Guide To Human Thought, Ideas that
Shaped the World, ed. Kenneth McLeish 1993,)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Mr. Herbert, what is a "fuzzy liberal" to do when the Media confuses
things? You only control your future by what you choose to put around
yourself and that includes newspapers. In spite of the "Liberal" Media,
very few liberals can make the above case to today's Media saturated
citizenry who have been told that Communism and Socialism are the same.
Even though the Neo-Conservatives associated with the Congress for Cultural
Freedom fought the Cold War by basically installing non-Communist Socialist
governments wherever they worked. They didn't even attempt to teach
current American Neo-Classic economic doctrine to the Germans or the
Italians. They fed them Socialism. The International conferences here
were not conservatives versus Communist Socialists but non-Communist
Socialists versus Communist Socialists. The then Democrats (Dixiecrats,
etc., now Republicans) were filled with true conservatives who also happened
to be segregationists. So Conservatism is old fashioned Class politics
and they have the money to buy the Media, the Courts and a few Blacks to put
up in front of the cameras. How many other JC Watts are there? What
about Alan Keyes, along with a few intense pretty Black females running
conservative not for profits and some Hip-hop Artists who refuse to pay
taxes?
The key word is here -- UNITY -- and the Republicans have it and Democrats
don't and it is that simple.
2. The first rule of Propaganda: "Accuse the opposition of doing what
they see you doing and put it on a constant feedback loop." When I read
the Kristoff piece on the day of the election about uncivility I was
appalled. What a typical fuzzy liberal thing to do. You would never
find a Republican doing such a thing on election day. He would have
accused the Democrats of being uncivil but never go after Anne Coulter or
Grover Norquist. Republicans are Loyal when it comes to Politics and that
is what they sell with their propaganda. They even marketed Bob Dole out
of Loyalty.
I don't know what society Kristoff thinks he lives in. He must envy
Safire's connection to the Publisher. He obviously believes liberally
that Liberals are only to be prey and conservatives like Norquist, and the
President, are to be predators.
3. The rule of money: According to the Media money is dirty for
Democrats but is a part of the Republican concept of "values." Let me
give you an example. A concert pianist practicing the Hammerklavier Sonata
is not valuable work but a typist typing irrelevant letters is. The
difference is that the first is not paid while the second is. That is the
rule of money. Strategic giving, thinking, etc. It is the foundation
of Game theory and of the reason for the wealthy's existance in their own
minds.
Several years ago Hilton Kramer and Samuel Lipman sat down with a group of
American wealthy folks and basically scattered the intellectual nedia
journals across a table and said in effect that this was the other side and
they had no one on their side. Out of that grew the New Criterion Journal.
What was not said then and is not said today is that most of those
"liberals" writing those "Journals" were well funded by the government to
combat Communism and present a different non-Communist Socialism. From
Sidney Hook to William Buckley these dudes were supposed to prove the
superiority to monopolistic communism by presenting a non-monopolistic
diverse front. They didn't consider non-Communist Socialism to be
monopolistic. At the time, these American "Intellectuals" who today
wouldn't think of supporting culture in the government here, didn't
hesitate to start world class cultural products for Germany including many
of their greatest orchestras, opera companies and Avant Garde Festivals with
American Government money directly at first and then channeled through the
large foundations providing the funding. At one point they even provided
the American Artists by banning Germans who were connected to the previous
government. And yet, these same folks came home and had a fundamentalist
conversion to Neo-conservatism. Of course what they really did was go
where the money was going and that wasn't and isn't towards the Democrats.
At one point during the 2000 elections your newspaper reported that 70% of
the donations from American business was going to a single party, the
Republicans. But that is OK in their doctrine since it is to ferret out
the "Liberals."
Who are those closet liberals? Chris Matthews? If complaining editor
for MSNBC Nachman believes it then he is equating liberals with venal
self-servitude. What do they do? Blame the Democrat, "un patriotic
liberals" of starting a class war when they are stealing us blind. And
then you and Kristoff blame us. Why don't you blame the Blacks in
Tulsa for Greenwood? It's too bad that the wonderful George Denny is
gone. He was the man who taught me about Greenwood and how the Tulsa
Tribune used propaganda that was as dirty as anything in Pravda to cover it
up. And today they have rewritten history. In seventy years they will
blame the Blacks in a small Texas town and do movies about the courageous
"Sheriff" who sent them all to prison for drugs. (I'm not agreeing but it
will happen.)
4. Where we are going: A college student I know told me this afternoon that
she asked to do a speech. She picked a speech by the wonderful Canadian
writer Boyce Richardson that took America and the American President to task
for his response to 9/11 and his hypocrisy for supporting the terrorist
school at Fort Benning, Georgia. Her assignment was to give a speech,
written by someone else, in her college speech class. She was told that
the speech which began:
We are in the grip of an unimaginative, self-righteous Christian preacher,
leading us to eliminate Evil, for Godıs sake!
The more often one catches George Bush on his pulpit raving away about the
mass-murderers and evil-doers who are his enemy (oblivious to the fact that
he has such people on his side, too) the more obvious it becomes that we are
in the grip of a fundamentalist Christian preacher, limited in intellect,
lacking in imagination, and of minimal capacity.
was too opinionated. She is in college in a prominent intellectual center
in the Northeast with many "great" colleges. She interpreted it to mean
that the professor couldn't handle the complaints about Christianity since
he is one.
Meanwhile on Chris Matthews tonight he just announced that old felon G.
Gordon Liddy would be speaking to analyze the election. I have no doubt
that next we will get that old lover of the Guatemalan people Colonel Ollie
North. This is amoral at the least and immoral considering that your own
newspaper published the Iran/Contra connection to the Guatemalan death
squads not so long ago.
If you want to know why that Texas lawman thought it was OK to convict the
poor and non-white people of Tulia, Texas by what he wrote on his leg then
you should consider that this snake pit in the Northeast is where it all
starts. They are not liberals, remember that the NYTimes published a
report a few years back that the most racist graduate group in the Nation
were Corporate CEOs who graduated from Princeton.
So if you want the Liberals to have a future and to win then you are going
to have to deal with:
1. United We Stand,
2. a return of the Fairness Doctrine in the Media
3. with the myth that the only people with "values" according to current
economic theory are neo-classic Republican economists.
4. the assault that has already begun to return the Universities to the
time
that I experienced in the early sixties when I was only allowed to
protest
if I protested a secular (humanist) "liberal" and it helped if their
name
indicated that they were non-Christian.
In short, if you know all of this then I don't understand your column and if
you don't then you should. Finally, if this is too much to read then that
really is the problem and you should leave the reading to the Republicans,
you can bet they know who I am.
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
