GRACE OR FASCISM'S FUEL?

 Historical amnesia.
This, plus a refusal to look squarely at ugly facts or to think when necessary, are fascists' bread and butter.
For at least the last 42 years and probably longer, a large bloc of voters in this country have done this. Considering we elected a Grade B actor as president, with nothing inside of him except what he absorbed from those to whom he was closest (more on that) because these voters wanted to live in Disneyland, I guess it's poetic irony that Florida's caudillo DeSantis is now yanking the floor out from Disney World.
And just what did the Grade B actor absorb? Once he married the adopted daughter of Dr. Loyal Davis, a wealthy surgeon with anti-New Deal politics, he absorbed most if not all of them, and thus became a fit front-man for those who wanted to scrap every scrap of the New Deal, including Social Security.
I wonder if the vacancy inside Reagan doesn't have something to do with his son's atheism, but that's for another time. Suffice it to say for now that, while I don't agree with the conclusions of atheists, I very strongly support their right not to believe. But back to the main topic.
Conversely to fascism, democracy stands stronger when it is more inclusive. Is it perfect? No, and perhaps never will be this side of Judgment. But democracy is a process. It enables more voices to be heard than ever before and, thus, has more self-correcting potential than any other way of governance than our world hath seen to date. Its weaknesses tend to be the places where bullies, mostly financial bullies, can make their influence felt. That is, those cracks where autocratic ways come flowing through.
Democracy, both political and economic, is also based on the truth that too much power inevitably--yes, Gentle Reader, you read me right, I wrote inevitably--corrupts human beings in mind, heart and soul. Kudos to Lord Acton for re-articulating this truth. Democracies, if they are to remain so, must have a solid economic floor and a not-too-high ceiling in terms of its citizens' incomes. We must also learn to give nature a voice (voices?) for our own preservation.
Democracies also need citizens accustomed to taking action together, making common cause with each other when the need arises. It needs citizens who keep themselves informed and engaged; no matter on which level. It also needs citizens to remember that autocracies have been largely dismal failures as governments except for the handful of people who profited by them.
Democracies are also right to require of their citizens, both native and adopted, to assimilate to the ways of democracy as each country has them and including what I just wrote.
Now: considerin' that all we bipeds are equally corruptible by too much power, let s/he who can answer me this: is this not true of us collectively as well as individually? Why do so many of us need to believe that our country and/or religious community is Without Sin, aside from those sins which look like fun but are actually mostly acts of desperation in search of an anodyne and/or a human connection?
And it seems that those who are most openly 'people of faith' have forgotten the lines of Scripture about no one, no, not one, doing good. Not to mention Jesus himself asked the rich young man, "Why do you call me 'good' "? I am also a person of faith, and let me remind you we are NOT saved by the apparent perfection of our faith community, much less our countries, but only and solely by the UNEARNED Grace of God! I happen to believe that comes in fullest form in Christ Jesus, but I'll tell you why and how only if you ask.
We need to grab hold of that Grace and use it to face the ugly historical truths and their current fallout and do what we can to eliminate or at very least mitigate that fallout and also to hear the alarm bells of how much we need to change NOW if there is to be any decent future for our grandchildren! We need Grace for a clear and honest remembering of our past, including all the ugliness of it. And a word for my political brethren: no nation is without its own uglinesses. No nation is more wicked than others but some (democracies) are more open to reforming those nasty parts. It's being closed to such reform that cements any nation or people in wickedness.
Let's ask for courage and discernment in this process of Grace thus pulling us forward!

TRIBE-TRANSCENDING DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY

 It seems my mind and David Brooks's are running along similar tracks this morning, although I think I'm a little more interested in reconciling 'tribal' wisdom with multiracial, multiethnic democracy.
Someone, somewhere has written this line: "Western Civilization was born in the creative tension between Athens and Jerusalem." I can see the truth in that; the tension is between the empirical observation of Athens and Jerusalem's loyalty to divine revelation. I think about another pair of opposites currently at loggerheads and wonder if one thing we need is a state of creative tension between them. These opposites are: on 'our' side, a universal law under which all life has equal justice and all humans have equal dignity and, on the other, ever more naked tribalism: everything for Me and Mine and crumbs, if even that, for all others.
You, Gentle Reader, might think the choice obvious. But, for many of us who are actually or, in our own minds, all for universal rule of law and democratic principles, we also still have what might be called tribal barnacles on us. That is to say, we all have our own partialities which tend to lean towards the ways and people who look like those with whom we grew up. There is nothing evil in having such biases.
The evil begins when, deliberately or unthinkingly, we treat 'our tribe' like royals: members of our tribe can do no wrong. My own inclination is to go the other way: were I on the bench and a case came before me in which a 'fellow' (fill in the blank) allegedly violated a law which I considered to be one of the treasures our common group gave the world, I would be hard put not to throw the book at the wo/man before me. I would be inwardly enraged and disgusted with that person. I might take a long look at the other judges in the same court, ask myself if one of them might better ensure justice done and wonder if I should recuse myself from the case at hand.
Many on my side of the political fence, including my wife (and, I suspect, my mother) like to think of themselves as 'global citizens'. I don't share that particular feeling except, maybe, as a catholic Christian. I do what a man can to put and keep my relationship with God foremost. Second, I love and care for my wife and our fur-babies. Then, I consider myself a U.S. citizen, a 'green' social democrat, an ethnic Anglo-Scots/Jewish hybrid and very much a product of Western Civilization. I suggest that loyalty to transnational ideas and ideals do not nullify tribal bonds. On the contrary; such ideas can take flight from their tribal origins throughout the world to the benefit of all life!
It must be stated and thoroughly understood, that a multiracial, multiethnic, multi-faith democracy is something quite new in human history. To those who rip and wish to tear down Western Civilization I ask, "And replace it with what? With naked tribalism? A new imperialism?"
One thing Athens and Jerusalem had, and have, in common is rigorous methods of self-criticism and self-correction. The West has this, too, in a way I cannot see any other civilization or culture to have. And it is one thing which has enabled the West to become what it is today.
At different times, two other cultures decided they didn't need to know anything more. Eight or so centuries ago, the Muslim world 'closed the doors of ijtihad' (meaning independent inquiry) and proceeded down the scale of scientific progress to the basement it occupies today. Six centuries ago, Ming China decided it needed to know no more about the outside world and that was the end of Zheng He's voyages across the Indian Ocean and even into the Red Sea. Had it been decided otherwise, China might have colonized at least eastern Africa long before Europeans did.
To be satisfied with 'enough' material goods and services is one thing and a commendable one. All the Abrahamian faiths enjoin us to share our surplus; we don't do nearly enough of that!
But to decide that 'we know enough' is arrogance of the worst kind. When we stop growing our minds and hearts, we start to die at a snowballing rate. The only thing worse is believing that no one can teach us anything but we have everything to teach to everyone else.
Allow me to point out to the haters of the West that allegiance to trans-tribal and transnational ideas and ideals didn't spring from somewhere fully grown. Within the West itself, such allegiances have had to (and still must, even today) climb up a long, steep hill. And there have been plenty of reverses, breakdowns, and tribal relapses along the way. We're staring such a relapse in the face, right now, e'en as I type these words!
Such relapses were, and are, characteristic of empires. The West is the only culture that has honored the best in itself by giving up those empires in a relatively short time and with relatively little bloodshed. And it is worth pointing out that capitalism run amok is probably one of, and quite probably the most, tribally oriented aspect of our own country: all for me and mine and crumbs, if that, for all others. Pretty tribal in the worst way, not so?
In order to grow, and make room for progressively more peoples, democracy must be both liberal and social. We must ensure a seriously level playing-field so that equal opportunity is--well, really real for everyone. We must build a solid floor and ceiling for our societies. This means that, among other things, no child goes to bed hungry and that everyone has clean water to drink and use. And that no individual, family or small group is powerful enough to defy a popularly elected government. We've been learning how much can be involved in that; we still are. Democracy is still unfinished; we're only beginning to give the natural world a voice--which, btw, we need to hear and work with!
It can even be argued that autocracy or oligarchy, in all its forms, is that society which says to its members: you needn't grow as people; indeed, we don't want you to. We know enough; we know all that can be known. We must now be static.
On the other hand, democracy knows there is always more to learn as long as we're here on this blue-and-green planet and, at least I hope and believe, beyond this life as well.
I also suggest that believing tribal/global is an either/or proposition might be a tribal remnant in and of itself; we need them to be both/and rather than either/or. We need to figure out how the two fit together and/or what creative tension between them feels and looks like. One thing is for certain: it can no longer look like 'empire', be that empire Chinese, Russian, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, Aztec, Spanish, British or even....American. We've been trying to work out being a democratic republic and an empire simultaneously. I'm not sure we've really succeeded in that or if success in such an endeavor is possible. But exploration of that probably needs a whole 'nother post. Did I see some shudders in the gallery? No worries; not this time.
I think Our Mr. Brooks and I agree that the West, especially Anglophonia and perhaps Protestant Europe, need to reconfigure personal dignity with communal cohesion; it's never good for any society to have as many lonely people as we do. And, like Mr. Brooks, I approach these dilemmas with both humility and confidence: humility because we, too, have plenty yet to learn about forging a society as justly as possible and confidence because we, too, still have plenty to teach about that as well. Maybe we all need to remember a saying about how much more we learn from failures than from successes.
Also, David, I agree with you in that the West is at least not supposed to be 'an ethnic designation or an elitist country club'. Our troubles begin when those we choose to maintain our systems behave as if it is rooted in ethnicity and gives better deals to members of their country clubs than to others. We all need to watch out for this as this is something we may do quite unconsciously. We need to remember we have two ears and one mouth. I for one very much believe that the Creator meant to make a point with that proportion.
And I'll end with two quotes from Our Mr. Brooks with which I heartily concur:
"At the end of the day, only democracy and liberalism are based on respect for the dignity of each person." We must show this by making this a real universality by our actions!
And again. David, I couldn't agree with you more about this: The heroes of Ukraine are showing that at its best, it is a moral accomplishment, and unlike its rivals, it aspires to extend dignity, human rights and self-determination to all. That’s worth reforming and working on and defending and sharing in the decades ahead.
Amen and amen, sez I. How about you?

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK: DEFEND AND EXTEND

 Democracy is now under attack around the globe.
It is being attacked both from without and within free, or partially free, societies.
The attack from without is centered in Russia, which is currently not a free country. It can be argued that Russia has been the locus for reaction and autocracy since just after Waterloo. Anyone remember Alexander I's idea of a Holy Alliance against liberalism and democracy?
But wait: don't the Bolsheviks and the USSR make an exception to that? I'm still pondering that, because I'm not sure the answer is yes. Bolshevism's original stated intent was a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' but whatever there was of democracy in that was very autocratically stifled by Stalin, if not earlier by Lenin. Both men had highly autocratic ways of governing.
Before I go any further, let me be clear. Real democracy proceeds from the bottom up, autocracy from the top down. Keep this in mind as we proceed.
The Russian Revolution may have started with a democratic impulse, but was imposed in the same old autocratic way that has characterized Russia ever since the Mongols conquered it and held it (except for what's now Belarus and most of the Ukraine, which became part of a Polish-Lithuanian kingdom) for two centuries. So right now, the Revolution doesn't look like too much of an exception.
And other autocracies, most notably China, are watching democracies to see how we react to this revival of autocracy and all its ways of increasing misery among most humans for the sake of elevating a handful of mostly exceptionally vicious bipeds.
An earlier post of mine recalls Lord Acton's phrase: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Rarely have humans said or written anything as true. This being the case, autocracy in all its degrees from familial to imperial is at least partially based on a lie: that humans who have had much power ought to keep holding it because they know how to use it. Much depends on what 'knowing how to use it' means. Other than that, autocracy is no more than the embodiment of Thucydides's dismal observation: "The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must."
That's all autocracy is.
Democracy is based in the truth that we are all equally corruptible by power, be that power political or economic. Cultural power is somewhat different as its power to coerce is much more elusive and limited than is the case for political and/or economic power. Cultural power depends at least partially on how desperate one is to be considered one of the 'cool kids' and/or one of the Good People. I frankly don't give a defecation about that, so, at least for me, cultural power is more like smoke and mirrors. And here's a poke for those anxious to think of themselves as Good People: don't most of you also call yourselves Christians of one kind or another? And doesn't our common faith tell us that we are all SINNERS?! At least that's how I understand it and I am a Christian. And I tell you as Christians we are called on to do right, love mercy, etc. and concern ourselves with how we can help other humans and other creatures to live and flourish alongside us--NOT to concern ourselves with Looking Good. Unless, of course, y'all are among the hypocrites of whom Our Lord spoke disparagingly!
Democracy is NOT based on any airy-fairy notion of how 'naturally good' we all are. To use Rachel's word, that's bullpuckey! Democracy seeks to arrange power so that we all have at least a little power but no one has too much. No one person or small group should have enough power to, essentially, privatize the public realm for themselves.
Democracy is also under assault from within, from those politicians bought by billionaires who love to think of themselves as Nietzchean supermen (Like the Nazis loved to.) and by their shills at businesses such as Faux News. The whole staff, with Tuckums and Vanity Hannity in the lead, like to think of themselves in the same way when all they really are is bullies' toadies. What they live on is the same type of patronage that kings and nobles used to give to those who flattered them enough.
Democracy is also now threatened by a slower sort of rot from within. It begins with taking democracy and its forms for granted. This is aggravated dangerously when too many of an ostensible democracy's citizens have to spend most of their waking hours just keeping roofs over their heads and food on their tables. That is now the case here in the US of A and it looks like the same thing is happening back across the Pond in the Mother Island. I hope it's not also happening in Israel.
In fairness, it must be said that democracy also demands more of us. We need to beware of those who would divide us by flattering some and pointing at others as the source of all or most of our problems. We need to check sources when we hear or read things that sound preposterous and figure out how 'interested' those sources are in persuading us of this or that. Democracy needs a large number of citizens engaged with its processes at each point. It also needs an understanding that rights, of both citizens (humans) and of other creatures and life-forms is NOT a finite pie to be divided.
We are now at a point where, to preserve ourselves and civilization, we need to establish Nature as having certain rights as well as ourselves and our pets. Autocracy allows, yea demands, we all not grow but remain overaged children looking to our daddies for our wants and needs. Democracy is the opposite: it needs us to continue to grow as human beings. Under a democracy, when we provide nourishment and services for each other via government, we need to remember that the government is NOT a Big Daddy but OUR government. Government is how we join together to give one another what we all need to live decent lives and which we cannot give each other any other way.
Democracy also needs respect. Respect for its forms, respect for one another as human beings, respect for nature. And also respect for expertise legitimately gained. But we also need the experts to be able to put their expertise in language all or at least most of us can understand. We are right to be suspicious of anyone who claims to be an expert at something but only comes out with a lot of ten-dollar words which s/he probably doesn't know what they mean either. (I'm looking at YOU, Newtie!)
Also, democracy requires that we insist on real answers from our representatives. Anyone going around a question ought to be voted OUT at the next election! Let our questions be answered, but if that representative can tell us WHY s/he answers the way they do, that too deserves respect even if we don't agree with that person's conclusions. And we need to be alert for clues that 'special interests' might have their claws in our representatives too.
Some will claim that they have the right to espouse ideas which give more rights to some than to others. I say, if anyone is whining about their rights not being respected while they seek to abrogate the rights of others ought to be shut down there and then for the lying hypocrites they are. My personal belief is that no one who attacks equal rights or the rule of equal justice under law OR the very rule of law itself ought to be allowed to hide behind those rules when they're cornered. Let anyone who so chooses make a counter-argument to what I write here!
Anne Appelbaum is right: we need to fight for democracy, liberal and social. We need to enforce democratic ways and means domestically and, at least at times, globally as well. There may be a tightrope between the capability of doing that and having an oversized and too-powerful military-industrial-security complex, but we need to walk that walk if democracy is to be defended and extended. In hope, let me remind my readers that real democracies do not go to war with each other.
This is one of my longest posts, but it seems to me to require that this much be written. Read, digest and share. Let's all do what we can to defend and extend democracy so more voices can be heard.