Letters to the Editor
-
The Boy King at 60
Bush is sixty years old, yet these neo-con luminaries treat him like he still needs lessons. Granted, the man is an idiot, but there seems to be conflict between the way Bush is treated by people around him (a doddering fool of a figurehead) and the way they present him to the masses--the brave steadfast leader, the second coming of Churchill, the reader. We are supposed to believe these fairy tales because the neocons tell us so (or Tim Russert tells us). But did anyone ever sit down and give Churchill lessons? Did they ever think Churchill would be intimidated by their great minds?
-
Don't Badmouth Marx!
Glenn:
As Drury notes (in the article to which I linked), that's just basic Marxism (religion as opiate of the masses), and these former Trotskyites simply converted those tactics into their new (really old, just slightly re-packaged) ideology.
Shadia Drury wrote:
Leo Strauss, the German Jewish émigré who taught at the University of Chicago almost until his death in 1973, did not dissent from Marx’s view that religion is the opium of the people; but he believed that the people need their opium. He therefore taught that those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit.
But Strauss's view only coincided with Marx's to the extent that the Trotskyites had turned Marx into a Trotskyite. Marx himself--in contrast--disavowed even being a Marxist. The context for that quote from "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right" is as follows:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
Whether you agree with any or all of the above or not, one thing should be kept in mind: If there is any religious certainty on Marx's part, it cannot really be separated from his Hegelian roots. But Marx was far more the empiricist than Hegel. The Trotskyistes represented a return to Hegelian apriori certainty. And the Straussians went even further in their zeal for aprioti certainty, without all that dialectical mess.
Marx should be criticized, not worshipped. That's my attitude toward all intellectual giants. But he should be criticized for his ideas, not Strauss's.
-
Scary Movie XLIII
I agree with those who have identified this as Glenn's scariest post ever. But I wonder sometimes whether many of you view the Bush administration as a kind of scary movie, something that will come to an end and the lights will go back on.
I blame this on the presidency and the neocons - literally.
Americans are used to defining politics in increments of presidential, time-limited terms. Thus, while this is a very bad presidency - maybe even the worst some might proclaim - there is an underlying sense of "this, too, shall pass", that once we get past the Bush administration, things have got to get better (or at least return to a more recognizable, "feel-good" script).
As for the role of the neocons, they provide a convenient label to avoid actually thinking about what we have really witnessed during the Bush era - a naked and revealing glimpse into the politics of American power. Not only are the neocons not going away, neither is the world-view currently attributed to them. They are but one manifestation of a well-entrenched view of how to wield American power and influence.
While the next presidency make not provide the same insights into the philosophies and machinations of American power (and surely this is the true hubris (and irony) of the current administration - that it has, in fact, acted so transparently, in such flagrant disregard of the more usual "feel-good" movie script), American power and policy will continue to be wielded to the detriment of large slices of the world's population.
It is not a coincidence that what appear as diverse political viewpoints - say, Hillary Clinton's and Bill Kristol's - coincide so clearly on topics such as a "nuclear Iran".
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
-
W.T.
Why do you assume Digby's a he?
-
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn, tsk, tsk
Nice try Glenn. Once again you almost wrote a good article. Re read the names. Now look at this quote from the article with one major change:
"Nothing matters -- not the disapproval of the American people of the President's actions nor rising anti-Americanism around the world. He should simply ignore all of that and continue to obey the mandates of zionism because that is what is Good and his God will be pleased".
What your article does at last clarify for me is exactly who is the puppet and who is the master vis a vis US / Israel relations. The great peril to the United States is clearly its domination at this time by Zionist influences, not Muslims.
I am the gentile CAMERA here to call BS on your mention of covert anti semitism. Get off it. Israel's behavior belies any such tired, mendacious attribution. And the zionist hijacking of the US govt was given ample play this week as a steady stream of elected and unelected US officials pandered to AIPAC and its unceasing clamor for US protection and war in the Middle East. Scott Ritter is absolutely right in stating that the interests of the US and Israel are NOT one and the same. And the AP photo of Cheney speaking at AIPAC with the Star of David framed, halo like, around his head is as horrifying as any image of Hitler and swastikas.
Replace neoconservative with zionist and then you'll have an article closer to the truth.