One of the most brilliant characterizations I have yet heard of the American economic system was given by Stephen Bannon (director of the recent documentary “Generation Zero”), on Sean Hannity’s show: “we have socialism for the very poor, and we have socialism for the wealthy; we have capitalism for the middle class.” It is brilliant because it is succinct, straightforward and spot on. (I nevertheless find the general thrust of that documentary ridiculous, but I will address that in another post.)
The unsustainable nature of the economic system, even accounting for the sorry and incomplete state of the socialist programs for the lower class, is clear. And it is becoming clearer every day, as banks continue to lavish bonuses on their star performers even as they suckle the public teat, while through corruption, waste or fraud, many able-bodied, self-sufficient individuals take advantage of public monies intended for those truly in need.
So what has caused this state of affairs? In short, liberal success combined with conservative success. In many general respects, the socioeconomic story of the US over the last 30 or 40 years has been one of the ascendance of right wing, laissez-faire policy regimes. However, at a less general level conservatives, beginning with and including Reagan, have consistently failed to significantly roll back key socialist-inspired programs like medicare or social security. In addition, important parts of the state interventionist welfare regime have remained solidly in place, enjoying broad support, to say nothing of such thorns in the libertarian side as the Department of Education. Left-wing success.
Nonetheless, with the aforementioned rightist ascendance, public handouts aren’t just for liberals anymore. One of the main ideas independents like myself believe is that both parties favor wasteful big spending, just on different things. Sure enough, Republicans and conservatives have spent liberally (pun intended) on Big Business, the rich and foreign entanglements during their time in power.
And so we have socialism for the rich and the poor, and capitalism for the middle class. That is, while the rich have enjoyed a free lunch at the public trough, and the poor have gotten by with ill-managed, but still significant, programs of their own, the middle class has been stuck with the bill on both sides. In a normal universe, progressive taxation-and-redistribution systems would mean, by definition, that it is mostly the rich that pay for the benefits of the less well-off. But with the oligarchic character of so much of American politics (on both the Democratic (think Wall Street) and the Republican sides), we have a system in which the most productive component of society—and, many argue, the most important component of a democracy—is also the least represented when it comes to policy. And as political wisdom will tell us, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.
Those who argue that Islam is basically incompatible with the secular and humanist values of the west, while Christianity is friendly to them, often focus on two major arguments. First, on a historical basis, they cite the supposedly “peaceful” origins of Christianity relative to the violent origins of Islam. Second, on a theological or doctrinal basis, they cite the differences between Jesus’ message and conduct and those of Muhammad. Unfortunately, neither of these two arguments is particularly effective in demonstrating their point. The fact of the matter is that the basic values of secular modernity are inherently incompatible with both of these established religions. Without realizing it, staunchly Christian Islamophobes saw away the tree branch upon which they sit.
The Historical Argument
Christianity arose as a persecuted Jewish sect, while Islam has its origins in imperial conquest. Sounds straightforward enough. Until one realizes this is not the whole story. Muhammad and his earliest followers, like Jesus and his, endured mocking, insulting and persecution from the established power structure of society. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to say that Muhammad could just as easily have been executed by the officials of Mecca as Jesus was by those of Jerusalem. Perhaps if Jesus had been as lucky as his counterpart, he too would have become more violent and fanatical over the years, changing history as we know it.
In any case, we don’t need Jesus to be violent in order for Christianity to be. We need only take a cursory glance at the history of early, middle and late Christian expansion. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire with Constantine, thereby ensuring that it would enjoy the backing of state power and oppression. As the centuries wore on, Christianity became the world’s largest established religion primarily through conquest, warfare and colonization. The modern Islamophobes like to point out the violence that was essential to Islam’s success in Arabia and North Africa, without noticing the much greater violence and oppression purveyed by Christians in Asia, Africa, Australia and the entire western hemisphere. When it comes to religious conquest, Muslims have got nothing on Christians.
Some have even pointed to the schism between Sunnis and Shiites as evidence of some violent tendency particular to Islam. Evidently they have never heard of Martin Luther, the Thirty Years’ War or Northern Ireland. Aside from religious violence and oppression, historical Christian activities and tendencies similarly antithetical to the modern secular world such as sexism, political tyranny or superstitious pseudoscience scarcely need mentioning.
Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, we find significant progress made in astronomy, medicine and commerce while the Christian corner of the world was languishing in superstitious backwardness during the Middle Ages. Rather than being essential to the advances of the modern era, Christianity acted largely as a hinderance to the scientific, philosophical and political achievements of the western world. Accordingly, as the west became less rigidly Christian starting with the Renaissance, and on through the Enlightenment, it became smarter, wealthier and healthier.
... there an ascension
The Doctrinal Argument
Jesus was a humble man of humble origins who preached peace and love. Muhammad was a cunning warrior who massacred his enemies and glorified violence. Pretty simple, right? Not so fast. This approach assumes that most if not almost all the essence of a religion can be found in the life of its founder. Now, the founder of the religion can give a good indication of what the religion is all about. But this is true only to a point. How much of a relation is there between the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth and the bitter theological disputes between Protestants and Catholics centuries later?
Upon inspection, a neutral observer is likely to discover that there is precious little that can be substantively said on “what the religion is all about” in any case. The Bible, for example, contains many verses and parables and stories that point to a message of tolerance, compassion and forgiveness, but it also includes many that construct a message of intolerance, violence and cruelty. Will the real Bible please stand up? How is a neutral observer supposed to know which is the serious part of the Bible, and which is just leftovers? One may point to the example of Jesus himself, but this is ultimately inadequate because there too we find contradictions. Also, if the violent components are so contrary to the “true” Christian message, then why were they put in the holiest book in the first place?
The same could be said for Islam and the Quran. The point is simply that those who would argue that Islam is not compatible with secular modernity, but Christianity is (indeed, secular modernity arises directly and naturally from Christianity) do not realize that “Islam” and “Christianity” are extremely slippery concepts unto themselves.
This is the easiest explanation for why on the one hand Jesus said to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” while on the other hand the Papacy ran European politics as a spiritual protection racket for hundreds of years. It is the easiest explanation for why the country with the largest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) has a secular democratic form of government that affords freedom of religion, while Muhammad himself ruled as both religious and political dictator. And it is the easiest explanation for why countless individuals have taken to the battlefield in the name of these faiths, while countless others have taken to the soup kitchen.
Conclusions
Some will respond that, at bottom, Jesus’ message was simply qualitatively different than Muhammad’s. It expressed a commitment to peace, and the seed of state-church separation that is simply lacking in the words of the man from Mecca. The problem with such an argument is that whatever Jesus’ message is or is not, it can enjoy only a partial relationship with the totality of Christian doctrine and Christian tradition. If everything about Jesus’ message can be summed up in a few lines about casting the first stone and rendering unto Caesar, why all the fuss about the Bible? What is the Pope for? What is the purpose of church, except as a place to sing hymns and play bingo?
What is interesting is that the very people who would make such an essentialist argument also view all of these less essential things as if they were essential. One supposes that such logical confusion is simply a condition of being “devoutly” religious in the modern world. Thanks to this tradition of confusion, one must pay lip service to all sorts of outdated, simplistic and backward notions, while on the other hand, one is forced to accept the unspoken assumption of the superiority of secular reason. How else can we understand those who claim that the very belief systems that have held back human progress for so long are in fact vital to it?
Work has required me to divert attention away from blogging for a number of weeks, and last week in particular. I will now return to posting on a more regular basis.
In other news, 100 Treatises has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see more information in the sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to atheist and secularist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Regular readers will know that I would count myself more as an agnostic than an atheist or anti-theist, but these I see as unimportant distinctions vis-a-vis the overall character of what we believe. In the same way, for all their differences and historical animosity, devout Christians would surely identify more closely with devout Muslims than with secular people.
New readers might be interested in a few of the more recent posts on secularism and religion:
One of the more curious attributes I have encountered among very intelligent and thoughtful religious people is the tendency to give great deference to traditional beliefs, and the texts in which those beliefs are written. For devout Christians, the Bible is given de facto preference, and they will quote from it liberally to validate point after point. The great contradiction inherent in this approach, of course, is seen when they will not give any other source, any other thinker or any other piece of evidence the benefit of the doubt on any other issue. Out of all symmetry with these very smart individuals’ outlook, the Bible enjoys a special status not accorded to anything else.
Needless to say, this is an extremely dangerous and unstable situation to place oneself in. To speak only of morality, the Quran, the Bible, or any other holy text contains a significant amount of material that will clash with the overall moral framework that most people in the modern world have (including countless well-read and well-spoken religious people). We are therefore depending on them to only pay attention to or take seriously those passages and verses that conform to their peaceful subjective beliefs.
The average Christian wants to believe that God is good and just and merciful, and so she will pay closer attention to those Biblical passages that demonstrate a good God, and ignore those that point to a bad God. But, at the end of the day, it is only her emotional architecture and subjective assumptions that keep her from killing us. Those who derive their morality from religion are playing with fire.
The default position should be to not trust religions that were created centuries and millenia ago. We know that ancient people were not smart. We know they were not wise to natural processes, that they did not have a framework of empirical reason or systematic skeptical inquiry. Rather, they only had the myths of their fathers and their own interpretation of them in the context of subjective experiences. Why anyone would give the benefit of the doubt to an ideology or belief system created in such a backward intellectual climate escapes me. It’s like giving the car keys to a 3-year-old, for goodness’ sake.
A recent BBC survey ranks the US number 2 in the world in terms of overall sinfulness. Each country studied was ranked in each of the 7 sins, and then given an overall rank. America takes the cake (no pun intended) in the category of gluttony. Australia is ranked at number 1 in terms of overall sinfulness. Regardless of the soundness of their methodology, it is an interesting concept, and the relatively high placement of the US should come as no surprise, given my recent analysis of the issue. Of course, one must remember the anti-American stance of much of the BBC, but still—food for thought (again, no pun intended).
American theocrats and holier-than-thou moralists would be wise to take a second look at that old assumption that the US is a “Christian country.” Maybe a little—dare I say—humbleness on their part is called for?
Ah, the good ol' days... actually getting things done
In the following recent conversation between Bill O’Reilly and Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, the former raised the assertion that liberalism is incapable or ineffective at governing. Newsom correctly pointed out that governance is, at least currently, a lost art in the US, irrespective of ideology or political persuasion.
The causes of this state of affairs (too much polarization, poor memory of history, just plain stupidity) can be debated all day long. But what is clear is that if liberalism were, as a philosophy or an ideological system, generally less effective at running a country or an economy, then we face at least two inexplicable phenomena: (1) the Republican congress under Bush and its unprecedented levels of debt and poor fiscal and economic management, (2) several consecutive decades in the 20th century of left-of-center dominance in economic and social policy (roughly from the 1930s until the 1980s) that nonetheless seemed to work out pretty well, with a broad consensus to boot.
What becomes clear is that good governance and effective management is a skill unto itself. This is why many CEOs and top-level managers can work successfully in the IT industry, five years later go to work for a healthcare company, and later for a multinational shipping company. The products and services differ, but the skill of effective management remains universally applicable.
The same applies to the public sector and to the ship of state. Independent of conservative or liberal ideological goals, nothing gets accomplished without an effective governance (at least, nothing sustainable). The natural conclusion is that, as politics in the US has increasingly become the domain of populism, ideology and sound bites, the art of getting things done has fallen out of fashion. Technocrats and realistic management have been displaced by politicians and ideological mismanagement.
The Democratic party has descended from the effective leadership of Tip O’Neill to the haphazard tomfoolery of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who, with a majority everywhere in sight, still could not get a realistic and decent healthcare bill passed within a self-imposed deadline. Meanwhile, the Republicans have fallen from the smart guidance of Newt Gingrich to the simple-minded childishness of Sarah Palin.
The election of Scott Brown, as I have said, indicates that perhaps Americans are starting to understand that the issue is not ideology, it’s governance, and who can do it more effectively. Somebody should give Bill O’Reilly the memo.
