Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1316 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Authority orientation
[Read the article: Larry Craig's bathroom behavior and the right wing -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This episode is acutely illustrative of what I would call an authority orientation divide that could accurately describe a major portion of the culture wars.
On one side I would place the social conservatives, the evangelicals, the Islamo-fascists and the authoritarians. These "Daddy" people look to an outside, absolute authority figure who defines good and evil for them, prescribes appropriate behavior and thinking and provides for the violent punishment of those who dare to step outside the lines. Often, the authority is inherently sacred, but human agents are needed in the form of theologians (or tyrants) to fully document and promulgate "God's will".
For these who subscribe to sacred authority the underlying notion is that human nature is inherently evil. Our existence is a continual struggle against that evil within ourselves, and only through total surrender to Daddy's understanding of the "one true way" can we escape punishment on Earth and eventual eternal damnation. Because of this inherent evil, every aspect of life must be controlled lest the evil escape.
Although they continually struggle to repress this evil that is within them, this group often unwittingly takes on the exact evil traits they claim to be fighting. Note the carnage inflicted on innocent civilians both by Al Queda and the US forces in Iraq.
Occasionally, as with Foley, Vitter, Haggard or Craig, individuals succumb to the internal evil they have been repressing and become the objects of their hatred in a more personal way. Is this a product of the daily struggle to be something the opposite of what they "know" to be in their hearts?
This can be contrasted with those whom I would describe as submitting to a secular and more dispersed version of authority. This authority is arrived at by a group consensus and includes concepts such as "consent of the governed". What the sacred authoritarians find hard to understand is that this is not simply "moral relativism" where there is no right and wrong, but instead is a system where right and wrong are described by a social contract. Yes, this contract is subject to change according to the process which has been developed by the group. More importantly, no judgement of human nature is needed by this system once the boundaries for civil discourse have been set.
This mind-set, by not having a single point of authority, provides for a much narrower range of rules. The only rules needed in this case are those needed for people to live peacefully with one another and to provide for common needs. Religious life is still possible and encouraged within this system, but is expected to stay within the boundaries of separation of church and state.
Ask yourself today: What is your authority orientation?
-
Great photo!
[Read the article: Larry Craig's bathroom behavior and the right wing -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The photo now accompanying the teaser for this story on the Salon home page is incredible. Given the rumors swirling today, the "deer in the headlights" look on McConnell's face is priceless. Can't stop laughing...
-
About that wide stance
[Read the article: Larry Craig's bathroom behavior and the right wing -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A copy of the police report is posted at The Smoking Gun. The problem with the claim about the "wide stance" is that the police report clearly states that Craig was sitting down in the bathroom stall.
Oh, and about making the plea before seeking counsel: The report has an addendum from June 22 (original arrest was June 11), stating that Craig returned to the airport Police Operations Center and banged on the window to speak with the officer inside. The officer who opened the window reported that Craig identified himself and said "he needs a contact so his lawyer can speak to someone". The officer put Craig in touch with the arresting officer.
Link:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html
-
April 2003
[Read the article: The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
I think that in the context of today's post, it is worth revisiting the information you present in A Tragic Legacy regarding Iran's peace overture to the US in April, 2003. As you stated, the overture signalled a willingness to discuss all of the US objections to Iran's policies, including its nuclear projects. Bush's outright rejection of this overture, while simultaneously accepting a virtually identical overture from Libya, still stands as a complete moral and diplomatic failure.
As you state, Bush and his co-conspirators began their quest to invade Iran with the "Axis of Evil" statement in January, 2002, despite concrete assistance from Iran in the immediate post 9/11 aftermath and then worsened their folly with the April, 2003 rebuff. Such a reckless and determined path to war, in the face of multiple opportunities to avoid it by simply responding in kind to concrete actions taken in good faith by the Iranian government was described very well by your statement: "It is thus true that one party to the US-Iran conflict has been beyond reason and negotiation, but it is clearly not the Iranians."