Gary Rosen's review of Susan Neiman's latest book Moral Clarity is great reading, and surely makes a decent case that Ms. Neiman, who stands on the political left, has produced a work worthy of broad attention.

Mr. Rosen does not hesitate to explore Ms. Neiman's frustrations with the increasingly intellectual and cultural vapidity of her leftist peers vis-á-vis universal principles. One passage stands out:

Ms. Neiman points to many factors in the left's retreat from universal principles. The demise of socialism has played a role, as has despair over the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. But the real source, she suggests, is a "conceptual collapse," a self-destructive descent into identity politics, postmodern theory and victimology. Her peers have become paralyzed, she writes, by the view that moral judgments are, ultimately, little more than "a hypocritical attempt to assert arbitrary power over those with whom you disagree."

Part of Ms. Neiman's prescribed antidote is a call to the Great Books catalog of western civilization (often touted by conservatives, like the late-Allan Bloom, as curative of many social ills). No doubt her proposal will raise the ire of multi-culturalists and feminists committed to radical egalitarianism, but I would assume she is more than capable of defending herself before such critics. The only "danger" in Ms. Neiman's idea is that she opens the door to the value of Tradition; such backward looking interests do not sit well with progressives committed solely to what lies ahead. But tradition, and the intellectuals embedded therein, can be formidable pedagogues. That is scary to a lot of folks.

Of course, I am the first to admit that many of my conservative peers have also turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the so-called western canon. I have not completed it myself, though I was definitely educated in that canon's great tradition. There is much to learn; and many Americans are like many fundamentalists, as both the progressive and the fundamentalist act with little regard to the storehouse of knowledge available in the literature and traditions of the past. Both types of zealots forget that many of the questions of today have been amply discussed by our forefathers, civil and religious. In many cases, answers and solutions have been given. The trend to deify our own era at the expense of other times is rooted in conceit and arrogance. And it is, at present, a perilous conceit.

Peace.

BG

In light of NHI blogger Chaz Proulx's recent blog entry (go here) wherein taxes, spending and crazy deficits were discussed, I found this commentary by the president of the Progressive Tax Institute very interesting, and encouraging.

Will Marshall's article discussing spending recommendations drawn up by a coalition of economists from both the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation is a decent read. It is good to hear of bi-partisan efforts outside of Washington's inner circles aimed at solving many of the country's fiscal problems.

Let me know what you think of Marshall's "Let's Pop The Deficit Bubble" published in today's Wall Street Journal.

Peace,

BG

Here's a great piece by WSJ editor Daniel Henninger on the sudden silence of Barack Obama's many prominent endorsers. Let me know what you think.

Peace.

BG

[In reply to "Pinko," who posted a very challenging comment at my blog entry, "SIMPLY SAD: Rev. Wright's Speech Today," I offer the following short essay I drafted yesterday and posted at my website. The essay is called, "The Worst of Times Revisited." "Pinko," I am disappointed to report, is a pseudonym, and hence our discussion is considerably diminished, as those involved do not feel safe enough to be themselves. I apologize if anything I've ever posted on the web has left anyone feeling battered, frightened, or less than human. My intent is always to write according to who I really am, according to what I really feel and think. And I intend to always do that with respect and even affection.

The essay which follows explores what I believe to be the case: that there is a clear racial divide in the Democratic Party. Pinko believes that Reverend Wright is not fomenting hatred, as I suggested in SIMPLY SAD. No doubt I disagree with Pinko, which is OK. But I think my opinion is not merely flung forth as some form of bombast. I am sincerely concerned about the safety of a presidential front-runner I respect; I believe we are in the midst of some very unsettling racial conflicts.

What Pinko may not understand is that I am a child of the 1960s. My heart knows the grief of that era; I still feel the anxieties of those times, especially when I spot certain current trends very reminiscent of those vile days. And as I mention in the post that follows, Barack Obama and I are the same age. Mr. Obama, then, knows what I know, at least in part, and I can't help but think he is unbelievably anxious, too. - BG]

The Worst Of Times Revisited

(Live blogging.)

Barack Obama is speaking to the press right now in a formal press conference. He has again expressed his consternation with his former pastor. He just called Reverend Wright's "performance" (Barack Obama's words) at the National Press Club yesterday nothing but a series of "rants not grounded in truth;" he even calls Rev. Wright's words an "insult" (among many other things).

What we are seeing, I am sorry to say, is something grossly reminiscent of the mid-1960s. The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, Dr. King: these were the backdrop of both Barack Obama's childhood and my childhood, as we are the same age. And, just like the 1960s, we are watching a battle over racial supremacy: which black man -- or black group -- truly speaks for minorities.

Over the weekend, Rev. Wright spoke at length to the NAACP about the different "learning styles" of European whites and African blacks. He defended an evolutionary difference between the two "races," and he went so far as to argue that whites respond to the first and third beats in a musical four-beat measure, while blacks respond to the second and fourth. Related to this, Rev. Wright used the device that blacks are "different but not deficient." Yesterday, in fact, he spoke at length about this very idea, that difference does not imply deficiency.

Most people, most THINKING people, would agree with Rev. Wright that different is not synonymous with deficient. I think his locution odd and unfortunate, and I suspect it is not something that most decent people have ever promoted.

But what I want to assert is that the conflict we see is over what it means to be racist. Traditionally, racism has been attributed to those folks who do not believe that one race is equal to another. If I think being white is superior to being black, I am a racist, because, essentially and unequivocally, I do not believe blackness is equal to whiteness. That is traditional racism, and I believe that is the model of racism under which MOST Americans, including Barack Obama, operate.

Alas, what Rev. Wright has done is to flip racism on its head. His "different but not deficient" slogan now means that the racist is he who believes whites and blacks are EQUAL. Wright's response to this idea is simple: No, no, no. Not equal. Different. To Rev. Wright, whites learn in a different way from blacks, and it is wrong of whites to think blacks are equal to the task, whether that task be learning to speak English or to understand European music.

I am inclined to aver that Rev. Wright has actually advocated a type of intellectual and cultural apartheid, American-style. His is a twist on separate but equal. He maintains that the separation is due to the fact that we are all "different."

Hence, what we are seeing is a race war between African-Americans. This is a massive, and truly scary, disagreement. And it is as scary as those sorts of disagreements that led to the sorrows of the 1960s.

Just some thoughts, offered in sorrow with much anxiety.

Peace, pray for peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008. All Rights Reserved.

[In response to a comment left on my recent blog entry, "SIMPLY SAD: Rev. Wright's Speech Today," I submit the following essay. Please note that "Susan Olsten," the name of the commenter, is likely a pseudonym; such an anonymous posting, I am afraid, always lessens the integrity of any discussion. Regardless, Ms. Olsten urges us all to read the Jewish prophets so we might get a better fix on Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I appreciate Ms. Olsten's directive, but I think it a bit presumptuous.

The essay that follows is overtly theological, and for good reason. Rev. Wright opined the other day that theology informs politics. Such a dictum merits analysis, or so I think. In fact, I believe it behooves us all to examine the political components of religious beliefs and the religious components of political beliefs. My sole credential in this matter is that I once studied for the ministry.]

The Gospel Of Guilt: The Wright Way To Preach

I can't resist writing a few theological responses to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech and subsequent comments at yesterday's National Press Club. Of course, I would not be interested in Rev. Wright if he were not undermining what I initially took to be a noble goal in the campaign for the presidency of Barack Obama. That goal was not racial harmony. It was that America would transcend race; that our politics and related discourses would get us past the bitternesses of our fathers. But Rev. Wright has sabotaged all that. Now, like a bad LSD flashback into the heart of the 1960s, race is everything. According to Rev. Wright, God is on the side of the oppressed -- solely. According to Rev. Wright (who cites, in passing, white "evangelical" Jim Wallis) America has not even repented of its sin of slavery. America, be damned.

Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is "damned," damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.

Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission to do so, as he himself believes Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.

THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION

I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:

"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."

Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)

Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.

But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this HERE): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.

Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns for the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.

THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION

Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:

MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?

WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."

(APPLAUSE)

I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.

But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.

Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.

And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.

THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head

Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:

"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."

Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.

Rev. Wright goes on:

"To say 'I am a Christian' is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.

How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say 'I am a Christian' is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us."

Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:

"Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.

"Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.

"Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed."

I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us that we should start our theology at the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is indeed asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.

But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.

That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.

But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!

Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but his concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.

Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.

THE GOSPEL OF GUILT

In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.

This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.

It is not the gospel at all.

Peace to you.

©Bill Gnade 2008/All Rights Reserved.