At 18:47 22/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Keith, Baker makes a good point and Ive seen this argument before, that as much noise and ballast as they create, the orthodox agenda has not been very successful in terms of enacted legislation or actually changed that much on the political scorecard yet.
I was very encouraged by Baker's article. Looking from afar, I thought that fundamentalism might have been becoming a juggernaut in America but, although aware of it, I've never given a great deal of attention to it. (Or, rather, that is what friends of mine in Bath worry about. I've been much more confident that it can never become a juggernaut, but it was good to read Baker's article as reassurance.)
As we know from other movements, say, the Brownshirts, it can seem like just another provincial nuisance and then become something else overnight. That is the key question I have around the upcoming presidential election, and why I think the neoconservatives who have waited to get back into power will continue to manipulate any and all orthodox issues,.to assure they remain there. Baker is correct that religiosity abounds.
I really don't think that there are similarities between the Brownshirts and the Fundamentalists -- apart from the fact that they employ similar methods of persuasion and propaganda techniques.
1.The Brownshirts came to power because post-WWI Germany was being locked out of the developed world economy. Thus they had most big business solidly behind them. This doesn't apply to America now.
2. The pseudo-science of Fascism had a few elements of science about it (e.g. the importance of leadership and ranking [which present-day evolutionary biologists see in all primate species], the importance of genetics [present-day geneticists are very worried indeed about the accumulation of deleterious genes in the human genome because of medical science] ) which was sufficient to bring many political and human scientists on their side.
3. The really important science of Germany in the 1930s was physics -- quantum theory and relativity theory. Here, the scientists were among the best in the world and generally either kept their head down, or got out of Germany, or misinformed Hitler and co. concerning the possibility of the nuclear bomb. The two branches of the physical sciences that actually supported Hitler were chemists (to extract nitrogen from the air in order to make fertilsiers and explosives) and engineers (to develop rocketry).
As to 2. and 3. above, the present infrastructure of science in developed countries (and America in particular) is very much larger and potentially much more powerful than the scientists and intellectuals of Germany in the 30s. Various branches of them are, of course, involved in developing armaments (weapons themselves, and delivery systems from satellites) but, generally, I think they're in the position that the economist, Thorstein Veblen, forecasted a long time ago (though he was thinking in terms of the power of engineers within factories). Scientists and intellectuals could cripple a nation that became dominated by Fundamentalists. Also, there is a far wider repertoire of science-based business which wouldn't tolerate an anti-science government.
My concern over the cultural wars is that, like so many other examples in history, the pendulum will swing radically from one extreme to the other, while moderates behave and reasonable voices remain silent.
I am becoming more convinced that the orthodox extremists in the US are just as capable of political shenanigans and deceit as the heathens they deplore. I suspect the issues, the speeches and votes are being cherry-picked and calculated deliberately to inflame passion, fear and theological symbolism. The orthodox communities should feel manipulated and cheapened. My hope is that they will become aware sooner rather than later how they are being used.
Slight detour: Browsing through a discount bookstore this afternoon I wandered over to the New Age and Religious/Inspiration aisle and was chagrined to see evidence that religion has become commercialized even further, to say nothing of dummied down: You can now purchase Spirituality for Dummies, Judaism for Dummies and The Bible for Dummies. A look through my county yellow pages directory revealed that of the independent bookstores, they were all Christian or Adult (the indies in East County have lost their market to Big Box Borders and Barnes & Noble, but this is not the case in Portland proper where indies are alive and well and Powells dominates both online and bricks and mortar).
There is a healthy showing of Christian merchandising that is not limited to books, music, cards, crafts and small gifts. As with Christian rock, its a growing business. Websites, newsletters and daily e-Journals abound, so that, looking at it solely from the market angle, the business of Christianity Inc is a more potent factor in the political agenda than it was 10 years ago, even 2.5 years ago. You may not see bumper stickers that say Buy Christian, but the attitude is there. Marketers and pollsters would like to know just how deep/true public sentiment is around religious issues.
I agree that there is evidence that we ought to be worried. But, as I've tried to argue above, I think that the science lobby (and the general business lobby) is far more powerful than you might be giving credit for. Of course there'll be many businesses that will exploit the credulity of the less intelligent but they are only a part of the whole. Despite the vast amount of corruption in recent years, particularly in the financial services, most businesses want to be honest and to satisfy their customers
Here's a current example of the power of the science-business lobby. I come back to the "story that hasn't been told" . It has been the multinational oil corporations (both American, UK and Russian) which stopped Bush in his tracks and caused him to instruct Bremer to expedite some form of Iraqi government two weeks ago. They will not develop Iraqi oilfields until there's a legitimate government to negotiate with. Businesses have a far deeper vested interest in law than governments have. Mercantile law (as with common law) developed long before governments ever got round to it.
I hope no one will mistake my observations for discrimination. These are my kith and kin, after all. Im simply suggesting that the business is enough of a motive to mobilize, protecting ones market. The owners of these businesses have an investment and image to protect. So when politicians and ministers have a political union, and the politics gets dirty, which one is cheapened? McReligion.
I am distrustful of Gen. Rove and Ralph Reed, the ex-Christian Coalition mastermind who is a religious political hybrid. If the orthodox movement takes on the passion and hostility that we saw over the Vietnam war and anti-establishmentarianism, the next 11.5 months could be very intense here and send ripples elsewhere. - KWC, brooding
Once again, big business and scientists generally have had no need to exercise political power so far. They have abided by the pseudo-democratic systems which have characterised the developed countries in the last 200 years. I write "pseudo-democartic" not out of any motivation to be ultra-sceptical but if you look at governance carefully over this period you will see (I think) that it's been more a matter of certain sorts of elites accommodating themselves step by step to a more economically powerful and informed working class but never really yielding power. It's almost always worked except in Russia where, finally, the nomenklatura ruined their own control system adn it broke down. (It's reasserting itself now -- but, then, Russia has no future now as a developed economy in teh western sense -- it will be exploited as badly as, say, Nigeria or the Congo.)
What I'm suggesting is that, so far, the science-intellectual lobby have had a reasonable life in pseudo-democracies -- crumbs from the rich man's table, as it were, but sufficient of them -- but if their role is ever directly threatened by simpletons such as Fundamenalists then they can thow huge spanners into the works.
Let me give you some more examples. In the days of nationalised electricity, when pay negotiations were due, we would experience mysterious electricity blackouts for, maybe, an hour or so. These were just preliminary intimations of the electricity workers' power if they didn't get what they wanted. Similar mysterious events used to go on in my old industry -- tractor-making -- when pay negoitations were due. I'm guessing that something similar is going on right now in the BBC. This morning, the Sunday morning service -- which comes from a church somewhere in the country, not from BBC studios -- depends on an Outdoor Broadcasting crew of engineers. It has not happened and something else was substituted. In the last two days, two other outside broadcasts have mysteriously not happened. In all these instances neither "side" will ever say what the reason is for obvious reasons.
Much the same will apply in the future generally. We now have a very sizeable tranche of intellectuals and scientists on which the rest of a country depends -- both the rich owners of businesses and the working class. Intellectuals and scientists are not normally interested in political power because their work is far more satisfying. But if they are threatened I am sure that they will be quite capable of throwing spanners in the works. Veblen used to write about engineers "going on strike" in the conventional way, but there are far more subtle ways of doing the same thing. (After the bombing of the HSBC building in Istanbul [and the Sheraton] you can be sure that the pressure on Bush will now become exquisitely persuasive. Indeed Control Risks Group already warned Bush about this a fortnight ago. Yesterday, Rumsfeld [or someone] said that "American interests all round the world are in danger". I think that was code language to the international businesses that policy is going to change even further quite soon. [What he secretly really meant, and did not dare spell out in plain language, was "We have been warned by major international corporations that they will not tolerate our policies for much longer because their operations are now in danger".]
That's enough from me!
Keith
P.S. The only country where scientists are clearly in charge of government is, of course, China. Personally, I don't think this will be dangerous. It's just that their policies will be more long-ranging than America's and, probably, much more intelligent. China's Poliburo is even less of a pseudo-democracy than most others but, like them, it will still have to pay attention to the grievances of the people if they wish to avoid uprisings.
Keith
KH wrote: Many people over this side of the Atlantic have viewed what appears to be a
rising tide of Christian fundamentalism in America with some consternation.
We often see photographs of American churches the size of our Albert Hall
with clappy-happy congregations and wonder whether and when we are going to
see this sort of thing here. There have been some troubling symptoms. Last
year, for example, it was discovered that the head of science at one of our
new state-supported city technology colleges was a creationist. He said he
would not forbid the teaching of evolutionary theory -- which I thought was
rather generous of him -- but he implied on a radio inerview that he would
make sure that creationism was also taught as another valid scientific
theory! I've heard nothing of this since but it was so outrageous that I
think something was quietly done about his role in the school and that the
blunder was not made again in these new 'showcase' institutions on which
our Whitehall Department of Edcuation is placing so much faith. (I have no
objections at all to creationism being taught in school, or indeed in
university, so long as they are private and parents have choosen them
voluntarily. Of course, intelligent parents with a concern for the future
of their children's careers would not do so.)
There is little doubt that the fundamentalist faction in the Anglican
church has been growing over here in recent years, and its voice has indeed
been much in evidence over the controversy of the appointment of homosexual
bishops, with live-in partners or otherwise. But I have the impression that
its total support has stabilised now. We sometimes hear evangelical
services on BBC radio, sometimes from fundamentalist-type Anglican
churches, and they are usually very jolly in which the congregations are
thoroughly enjoying themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that, of
course. We badly need more social opportunities like these in our modern
too-privatised society, often so very lonely for many people, especially
the old. But the intellectual standard is none too high on the part of
those who lead those sorts of congregations and memberships of these sorts
of churches seem to decline as quickly as they rise.
Generally, I don't think we need to worry overmuch about fundamentalism
having an undue influence on our affairs even though at the present time
president Bush aligns himself with this wing. But that is possibly for
electoral reasons. We won't know his real beliefs and motivations, or even
his real intellectual abilities, for some time until enough biographies are
written. (Our prime minister of 50 years ago, Harold Macmillan, put himself
over very successfully to the public as a jolly sort of buffoon. He was, in
fact, very clever indeed and a superb actor in public.) But whether Bush
is or isn't a fundamentalist, or whether he is intellectually handicapped
-- as is believed by many of the chattering classes -- or not, all
developed countries are gradually moving into a culture in which
intelligence is not only needed but is increasingly selected for. This is
what frightened Michael Young when he wrote his famous book The Rise of the
Meritocracy. But I don't see how it can be avoided in an increasing
technological society with a basic dependence on science. The more
egalitarian and opportunistic we make our educational system, the more
selective and intellectually stratified it is likely to be.
It is very interesting and probably of the greatest longer-term
significance that when Den Xiaoping sharpened the succession procedures for
the final selection of the ruling Poliburo 20 years ago, he was reinstating
the old Chinese mandarin system -- that is, that China should be governed
by individuals of proven scholarship and administrative ability. In
traditional China, mandarins were initially selected on the basis of
passing formidably difficult examinations based on the classic literature.
Today, the emphasis is on science. The last Politburo member who was an
'ordinary worker' -- a carpenter -- retired last year and, as it happens,
all the present Poliburo started their political-administrative careers as
scientists -- and, I think, they are all 'hard' scientists, too, such as
geologists, physicists, biologists and so forth, but I am not sure.
I believe that what will prove to be a major contributory factor in the
economic downfall of western Europe is that scientists hardly feature at
all in the political parties and civil services of most of the member
nations. In England there are no morfe than a dozen scintifically trained
MPs in the 625 member House of Commons and there are no scientists among
the 15 or so Permanent Secretaries who head the main government
departments. David Kelly, one of the world's leading authorities of toxic
chemicals in the world, was described by one of the mandarins as a
"middle-ranking civil servant". (Those who knew him well have said that
this comment was one of the main contributory factors in his
suicide.) There is still considerable prejudice -- even animus -- against
scientists being involved at the highest levels of administration even
though modern society depends on science and technology. In the case of
America, it is difficult to say what the outcome may be in the coming
years. In the course of the last century, and particularly in the last few
decades, America has been able to attract many of the greatest scientists
in the world and they ought to be able to work their way through into
administration and politics in due course. In the meantime, however, the
cultural future of America is an open question. However, despite the
appearance of a vigorous strain of fundamentalism in America, Gerard Baker
for one thinks that it is not serious, and in fact is declining in its
political effects. In the following article he gives his reasons for
believing this.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
THE MYTH OF US FUNDAMENTALISM
Gerard Baker
For years Massachusetts has enjoyed a special place in the psychology of
conservative Americans. Its predilection for far-left liberal causes has
earned it some famous soubriquets: Taxachusetts, the Socialist Republic of
Massachusetts, the Wacko Commonwealth. Even as it has elected Republican
governors in the past decade, there is no state in the US better equipped
to help conservatives define what they are against. On Tuesday the state
gave its tormentors one of their biggest gifts yet.
The state's highest court ruled that its legislature had erred in passing a
law that forbade same-sex marriages. (Think about that for a moment: there
are important people in Massachusetts who find the state's lawmakers
insufficiently liberal.) Four of the seven justices said the state
constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It
forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
According to the judges, banning gay people from marrying did just that.
Their ruling will have profound implications and will fuel the campaign to
pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man
and woman.
But the ruling was interesting for another reason. It served as the most
useful corrective yet to the notion, commonplace in the finer salons of
American and European society, that the US is two-thirds of the way to
becoming a fully fledged theocracy.
It is hard to find a serious observer these days who does not believe that
the US is in the grip of a Christian fundamentalist revolution, which is
pushing the country steadily towards a state of fervid intolerant piety,
infusing politics with its zealous brand of censorious biblical theology.
But the problem with this is that it is almost impossible to find a single
aspect of US life in which Christian conservatives have succeeded in
shifting the country in their direction since emerging as a serious
political movement 30 years ago. All the indications are that, while
Americans themselves remain deeply religious, their institutions and laws
continue to be distinguished by an enduring hostility to anything that
hints at religiosity.
The Massachusetts approval of gay marriage is just one in a series of legal
rulings and legislative decisions recently that have reaffirmed a secular
liberalism across the US. Three other states -- Vermont, Alaska and Hawaii
-- have passed laws that in effect describe an insistence on inter-sex
marital unions as inherently discriminatory.
Last month a court in California ruled that the recitation of the pledge of
allegiance each day in the state's schools was unconstitutional because it
refers to God, breaching the separation of church and state. School prayer
is probably the single most important issue for Christian conservatives and
yet not only have they failed to advance the cause; they have even been on
the defensive against efforts to expunge even the most minimal and
non-denominational at religious references from the nation's education system.
We have known for years that liberal states such as Massachusetts, Vermont
and California are not your typical US states. But consider some other
recent events. Last week a court in Alabama, of all places, threw the
state's supreme court justice out of office because he refused to remove
the Ten Commandments from his courthouse.
This year the US Supreme Court -- that conservative-run cabal that handed
the presidency to the Texan fundamentalist George W. Bush -- has declared
anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional and upheld affirmative action in
university admissions.
What about abortion? It is true that opponents secured perhaps their
biggest victory earlier this month when Mr Bush signed into law a bill to
ban partial birth abortion, the first real federal restriction on abortion
since the landmark Roe vs Wade case in 1973.
But opposition to partial birth abortion goes way beyond the religious
right. The bill was passed with close to a two-thirds majority in both
houses of Congress, including a dozen Democratic senators, and is
supported, opinion polls suggest, by a similar proportion of Americans.
Even then, the Act was immediately ruled unconstitutional by a New York
court and now sits in legal limbo pending further judicial decisions. So on
the signature issues for Christian conservatives -- the sanctity of
marriage, abortion, school prayer -- the
history of the past 30 years has been a series of steady defeats, not
creeping gains. The much-feared religious conservatives may have been
effective in getting CBS to drop an unflattering portrayal of ex-president
Ronald Reagan but, when it comes to changing the law, they are no match for
their opponents.
Some of these questions, especially gay marriage and partial birth
abortion, may play a big role in next year's presidential and congressional
elections -- surely, incidentally, a more appropriate place for their
resolution than the chambers of state judges. And
we may discover then that Christian conservatives have succeeded in
shifting the nation's political tilt.
But I doubt it. Even if next year's politics set back the cause of gay
marriage or late-term abortions, it will not be because the Bible-bashers
are in control but because a majority of Americans, those who go to
churches, mosques and synagogues, and those who prefer to stay at home and
watch football, want it that way.
Financial Times -- 20 November 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
