Redstate

Paul,

would you define, either in a comment or expand upon length in a diary, what your definition of the West is?

You mention the torch of Democracy in this piece, but surely as a (Federalist-paper wielding) conservative you would prefer a Republic over the mere process and mechanism of the voting process (I suspect that your discomfiture at the outcome of the Palestinian elections exceeds mine, though mine is not negligible).

I will make my bias plain; I distrust raw democracy. I prefer checks and balances, with equal balance between the will of the people and the wisdom of the elites. I have long argued and agreed that the 17th Amendment is the root source of the corruption of our Republic, which may surprise you given my ostensibly "Liberal" leanings.

But your wider thesis is about the West, as a civilization that exists separate and apart from Islam, and my own thoughts have recently turned towards that construct as well, because I so often see "The West" invoked as the source of many principles which I understood to be universal; there is clearly a disconnect and to understand it I must know just what, specifically, you are laying claim to.

So, I ask: What is teh West: Who is the West? What are the West's founding principles? What qualities are neccessary AND sufficient to classify a people or a nation as Western?

Regarding your point about the "unity of culture" present in the U.S. when The Federalist was written--doesn't the fact of slavery somewhat undermine your point about cultural unity? There were at least two cultures present in the U.S. at the time.

I'm glad to hear that you are on-broad with repealing the 17th.

And yes: you are right in guessing that I am a republican more than a democrat, but as I have admitted elsewhere, the term Democracy has acquired a whole mass of other concepts that attach to it in the American mind. That's why I capitalize it.

But even in a republic, where the power of the demos is channelled and checked, the preponderate majority must eventually prevail, unless we prefer the philosophy of John Calhoun (and let us not plunge into folly and dismiss that philosophy as mere apologia for slavery) to Lincoln.

As for your tremendous question, What is the West? I can hardly offer a satisfactory answer in a comment, a diary, or probably even a book. Instead I'll defer to Lawrence Brown, who in his unjustly neglected masterpiece The Might of the West, defined the West as the descendents of the Roman Catholics of 1500. I think that a sufficiently functional and provocative definition as to encourage fruitful discussion.

In truth the fact of slavery strengthens my point, for slavery was indeed the original sin of America, and a poisonous rupture in our unity. Many of the founding fathers knew this. In the end, it required a bloody war of brother against brother to extirpate.

Slavery and the Civil War only demonstrate the importance of unity, and the prescience of those who sought to achieve it for us.

"descendents of the Roman Catholics of 1500"

Paul, this will not suffice to encourage discussion at all. Geneaological descendents? Intellectual? Theologic? All of the above?

The definition is so broad as to be useless. I have come to respect your views as a man committed to defending his nation; but if you cannot define the West in your own words, you will cede the argument to those who will define it for you.

You must define the West for your arguments - taken as a collective whole, not piecemeal - to have significance.

I request that you take the time to reply in detail on this matter - a diary would be most appropriate. I have and will take you seriously enough to spend not inconsiderable amount of my own free time responding to your own queries (for example, my email to you on the matter of the Qurayzah), and I hope that I have earned the right to be taken in equal seriousness by you. If not, then say it plainly so that I may stop wasting both our time.

and Yankees and Southerners both were overwhelmingly English-speaking low church Protestants of British extraction.  

I did not intend to be glib. I think Brown's definition a good one. I have used it in published writings. Another way he formulates it is to ask, What is the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church of 1500 to Western Civilization? The relationship is one of absolute identity. As I wrote (linked above), "The Roman Church of 1500 was Western Civilization. That the West subsequently diverged from the Church is both indisputable and irrelevant, for the great bulk of the groundwork had been accomplished, and even what had not yet been was quite inconceivable without what had."

Another question to be considered is when the West began as a separate unity. For a very long time the West was sort attached, like child to parent, to the Classical civilization, especially since that civilzation had become Christian. Augustine stands as the central figure marking the initial break with Classical (i.e., Greek) civilization, for his historiography constituted a complete break. Aquinas figures prominently, for absorbing Aristotle into Christianity. But the adulthood of the West was not achieved until the casuality of Classical civilization was finally abandoned, beginning in the high Middle Age. Thus, 1500 becomes a good date to designate the full maturity of the West, before the inevential decline has begun.

As for your further question, "Geneaological descendents? Intellectual? Theologic? All of the above?" -- the answer is indeed all of the above.

I'll note that the phrase "the West" does not even appear in this essay; its subject is more precisely America. So I don't think I can give much credit to your demands for my own definition of the West.

This is an excellent entry, and covers the domestic negligence well. Profiling is one example of the lack of seriousness exhibited in 'Homeland Security.' But even abroad, the same weakness is on display. The fear of collateral damage to innocents means that too many of our warfighters must die or live with permanent damage. There is no political will to fight an agressive campaign with victory as its objective. Instead, we are trying to 'win the hearts and minds'. This is not a winning strategy.

However, it is unclear to me how much of this is attributable to the failure of the Right to think clearly, and how much is a product of the ability of the Left to set the national agenda. How much is truly possible? If we were to 'cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war' would public support for the war wane?

In Blogdom, it is easy to forget that those who influence both policymakers and policy implementers are leftist not only in political philosophy (salvation through government), but in culture (multiculturalism), economics (redistributionism and state intervention) and religion (material fundamentalism).

There are two facets of this problem. One is that many Republicans, including the President (and his adminstration), are contaminated by this worldview because it dovetails with the zeitgeist. For GWB, it appears to him to be compassionate. Never mind the injustice institutionalized by the government.

The second facet is that even when policymakers adopt improvements, implementers can thwart those reforms. The bureaucratic empires of, e.g. the State Dept., and others in DC are not about to relinquish their imperial prerogatives just because the American people vote for the wrong person or party.

The difficult questions are: Can we restore the health of our system? How do we deal with a Left for whom honor and duty are pejorative terms?

And what about Republicans like McCain? McCain has done more damage than the combined efforts of all the Democrats in the Senate. Who would have guessed that we would see McCain betray the Constitution with CFR, or spearhead the extension of Constitutional rights to the ruthless butchers of Al Qaeda?

How do we return patriotism to public school curricula? How do we drain the Marxist fever swamps in Academia? Is our national disease amnesia, or Alzheimer's? Do we have a model of anyone in all of history accomplishing this kind of reorientation? If so, we ought to study it and apply its lessons immediately.

That would be CAUSALITY.

...slave culture and white culture.

I think your original statement might have been inaccurate.  Specifically, there were very few restrictions on immigration prior to 1921.  No Asians were allowed, but essentially everyone else was (the only exceptions were for disease, and these standards were notably lax, with only 2% of potential immigrants turned away).  So in truth, immigration policy was only shaped by "cultural unity" since 1921.

...of George MacDonald Fraser's comment that (I paraphrase) the Civil War was the natural result of two distinct groups of people waking up one morning and discovering that they had wildly differing opinions of what, precisely, the United States was to be.

No real comment otherwise; I was just struck by the thought and it seems relevant enough to the general discussion.

Then the decline roughly dates from the Protestant Reformation. And since the American political tradition essentially emerges from the Reformation, there is a suggestion in which the founding was a consequence and a contributor to that decline.

I do recognize that your essay does not mention the west. But your narrative either ignores or erases the Enlightenment heritage of the American Founding. In so doing, I think you ignore the one thing that makes the US and the West worth defending from its enemies, who are, make no mistake, enemies of that Enlightenment and understand themselves that way.

I don't see why the position you seem to take doesn't succumb to raw identity politics based on irreducible difference, and thus does inevitably lead to a clash of civilization. I fear this as well, but to me the sides are aligned differently. Marxists, fascists, post-modernists (Western ideologies, of course) and fundamentalists all deny the relevance of reason, and thus oppose modernity in all its manifestations, including its political ones.

Interesting post, and I think I share your general sentiment, but I am not so sure it is as philosophical as all of that.  One comment hit on perhaps a better word: zeitgeist.

Most politicians don't do what they do because of philosophy per se but rather because of concrete interests combined with perceived notions of what the reaction to their actions will be.  On immigration issues, and those dealing with Muslims, most on the right are not thinking within a right-wing liberalism so much as acting in fear of big business and the media.

There isn't a embedded theory, I don't believe, that prevents those on the right from calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration so much as a belief that any such proposal would cause a hellacious media backlash that would poison GOP advances in minority communities for years.

It is worth pointing out that much of this speculation is wrong or could be skillfully handled in such a way as gain ground or at least minimize damage, but perception is key in politics.

Maybe the folks at the Wall Street Journal have some sort of right-wing liberalism going, but IMHO a great many others on the right just want to avoid ugly media battles on seemingly intractable issues.

The Reformation was the first explosion that augured decline, though we should not discount the failures of the Roman Church, which provoked the Reformation.

And since the American political tradition essentially emerges from the Reformation, there is a suggestion in which the founding was a consequence and a contributor to that decline.

The American political tradition owes much to the Reformation. But how much it owes to the Enlightenment has been, in my view, vastly overstated. For example, the man who most obviously embodied the Enlightenment in America -- Jefferson -- had little to do with the Constitution itself. And the Revolution that most obviously embodied the Enlightenment -- the French -- was repudiated by Americans, and its agents subjected to fierce legal prohibitions.

Marxists, fascists, post-modernists (Western ideologies, of course) and fundamentalists all deny the relevance of reason, and thus oppose modernity in all its manifestations, including its political ones.

I certainly don't deny the relevance of Reason, but I also recognize that Reason alone gave us the slaughter of the twentieth century.

I will ask no one to fight and die for so mixed a blessing as modernity.

Like Aziz, I'm interested in your definitions. What is "moral law"?

The existence of such a thing strikes me as a profoundly suspect premise.

While Jefferson is most associated with the Enlightenment, I would certainly add Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison to the list of important founders who ought to be considered Enlightenment figures.

I think the role of the Enlightenment in the American founding is a pretty big debate in academic circles that has a lot to do with how one defines "Enlightenment". If we have a broad understanding of that term (to include its Scottish and German elements in addition to the French ones, and we also include Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, Montesquieu and even Shaftesbury and Edmund Burke, it would be difficult to find any non-Enlightenment figures who were prominent influences.

The one thing that makes our society worth defending?  

I'm interested in defending the west not because it fathered the so-called Enlightenment or because it embodies the Enlightenment more fully than other civilizations.  Even without the contributions of a few philosophers and agitators, there would still be much to defend:  Bach, Palestrina, French food, Shakespeare, Chartres, the saints and spirits and languages, and all the millions of people and hundreds of societies that made what we loosely refer to as the west, or preferably, if archaically, Latin Christendom.  I would defend it because it birthed me.  I'm not so openminded that I refuse to take my own side in an argument, and I care nothing for some Jacobin project of ideological homegenization that must encompass the entire world to avoid self-contradiction.

Them's a lot of big words.

I have some questions, so that I might come to a mutual clarity on your subject.

I am confused slightly by your term "unity". The gist of your post would seem to indicate that allowing tax-paying, business-owning Arabs to remain in the country would be done with some reluctance. When you speak of "unity", are you speaking of the expectation of immigrants to assimilate to the cultural hegemony, which I can't say I'm necessarily against, or do you mean it more in the sense that we should expel non-European/Western-types completely? I would assume that the more rational point would be the former, but there is that undercurrent of tone that seems to indicate that you might disbelieve in the non-Europeans ability to assimilate themselves into a western society at all, and because of their tendencies to form non-integrated communities, they should be expelled. Or do you believe this only for Arabs? I realize that my words here might sound like I'm pulling the racist card, but let me clarify that it's not my intention at all. I believe that RACISM requires an actual dislike or intolerance for particular groups of individuals, and that harboring a belief that a group may or may not fit into a particular community or system is not inherently racist. I can't pretend to have insight into your underlying mindset. I'm just trying to clarify.

Additionally, I would enjoy seeing reports on how many individuals in the United States have been killed in our country BY Arabs, as opposed to the numbers by other groups of immigrants that come into our country, illegally or otherwise. I will admit that 9/11 gave us a spectacular singular example of Arabic murder. Nearly 3,000 people were  killed overall in those attacks. But oddly enough, in 2001, we managed to kill 16,037 of our own people outside of crashing planes. Perhaps Arab violence would have been more palatable had they simply engaged in a more measured and personal method of killing 3,000 people? Except for the statistical anomoly, we might not have even noticed.

Personally, I work with a number of Arabs who have immigrated to this country, from Iraq, Syria, and Palestine. And I work with even more Muslims, like Persians, Pakistanis, Indians. I don't fear for my life, but I do fear for their lost opportunity, and the positive exposure of our culture that they bring home with them. Last I checked, we weren't in the business of blaming an entire people for the sins of a few. After all, you're well-educated, and probably white, and you're not in jail for embezzlement. And neither am I.

But your vision of the West is one of nostalgia more than one that recognizes its current realities and triumphs. And if so, what are you defending other than a memory or a hollow tradition?

Believe me, I know defending the Enlightenment is not fashionable in this day and age, and perhaps I too am defending little more than a memory. And I recognize the way in which the skepticism of the Enlightenment generates its own excesses. Even so, I find either the mysteries of medieval world view or the various barbarisms of the post-modern world have much less appeal than the fundamental Enlightenment claim that the world is comprehensible.

claim that all, or perhaps "merely" most, of human existence is rationally comprehensible just isn't true ?  

the 'left' with the 60's era radicals on the fringe of the Democratic Party. In this mindset, the 'liberals' are 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' in terms of foreign policy. They are appeasers whose first reaction is to surrender.

The Republicans/conservatives, on the other hand, are the muscular nationalists who are seeking to protect America.

As you pointed out in your article, this dichotomy is false. Standard liberals were at the root of almost every American war of the 20th Century. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Truman in Korea, Johnson in Vietnam, and Clinton in the Balkans. Republicans either inherited existing conflicts (Eisenhower and Nixon) or engaged in very minor conflicts (Grenada). Only Bush I substantially departed from this model with two major actions, one in Panama and Desert Storm. But, then again, I don't know anyone that would confuse Bush I with a conservative, so may be his wars are Standard Liberal wars, just with a different party affiliation.

Standard liberals have traditionally been pro-war, and unafraid to play the nationalism card. In fact, as many writers including Hayek have pointed out, nationalism is the last phase of socialist thinking.

What has happened in the past 10 years, is that the Republican Party and its current 'big government conservatism' has actually begun to sound like Hubert Humphrey Democrats. Hawkish on foreign policy, pro-immigrant, and into big, expensive programs at home to cure all that ails you.

I don't care much for this transition. Unfortunately, the charicatures present in our political debate prevent Republicans from seeing how far we have slid from being a small government, conservative party. Hawkishness and nationalism alone do not prove that one is not a 'liberal.'

Thanks for this post. May be it will attract some positive debate.

Paul,

I am generally a pro-immigration conservative, and I do believe that part of what makes us strong as a country is the fact that we are a melting pot. (I use the term "melting pot" in the sense that it has been used historically in American culture until recently, a concept that assumes that there will be assimilation of immigrants.  Your post seems unwilling to acknowledge a difference between a "melting pot" and the "diversity for diversity's sake" multiculturalists.)

At the same time, I have no problem whatsoever discriminating against Muslim immigrants, for two reasons:  (1) we are in a war against radical Muslims, and we still don't completely understand the nature of our enemy (e.g. are the truly moderate, peace-loving Muslims 10% of the Muslim population or 90%), and (2) there is very little doubt that it is harder for Muslims to fully integrate into a culture that is still (thankfully) predominately characterized by Judeo-Christian values.

My problem with your post is that you do exactly what you accuse liberals of -- you make the "glib assumption that [your view of conservatism] constitutes the only reasonable voice."  You overstate your case, unfairly brand anyone who disagrees as a closet "Liberal" and insult many sincere and deep thinking conservatives in the process.

Furthermore, your philosophical premise scares me to death!  Who is supposed to define who is a "subversive" in order to limit their free speech.  And if Islam itself is our enemy (not just radical, violent Islam), why not deny freedom of religion as well?  And why stop with just illegal Muslim immigrants or even legal Muslim immigrants?  Why not kick out (or put in concentration camps) all Muslims?  I'm not saying you are proposing to go that far, but your philosophical premise could lead to such a result.  I'm all for a more forceful security posture in our country, but I'm not willing to throw out the First Amendment, which I consider to be the bedrock of our freedoms and an indispensable part of the culture you clearly love.

I suppose you are trying to shock a segment of the conservative blogosphere into taking seriously the problems of Muslim immigration.  But the effect (at least for me) is the opposite.  Instead of drawing me into an honest conversation about the issue, you make me defensive from the get-go.

The thing I have liked the most about RedState is the rational discussion of issues in a way that acknowledges legitimate differences among conservatives, without unfairly demeaning those conservatives who disagree.  Your post struck me as a violation of this principle.

I suspect I am not alone, even among the editors of RedState.

It leads us, I think, back to the horrors of relativism. But what are the reasons for believing that human existence is not comprehensible? What would an answer to the question look like?

I do find it interesting that the place to look for the revival of medieval mysticism (though of course not in the same form) would be in the post-modernism of Derrida, Foucault, and Rorty.  

however, it is up to the United States to decide who can immigrate to this country and who can not. It is also up to the United States to decide who can study here, and who can not, or who can work here and who can not.

First of all, I think you overstate the case of exposure to America having a positive impact on non-Americans. I am a citizen of the U.S., but I have spent much of my adult life living in Europe. I have met tons of Europeans and Muslims who did educational or work stints in the U.S. who came back home rabidly anti-American.

Why? Our culture can be inhospitable to those from traditional backgrounds, and our society is frequently offensive for religious traditionalists. I have met more than one Muslim in Europe who never hated America until he attended Princeton. The fact that anti-American imans and college professors are more than happy to preach radicalism to them doesn't help the situation, either.

So, to keep the gates open as a kind of 'outreach' is unlikely to have much impact. The question is - what benefit does the U.S. derive from Muslim immigrants as opposed to non-Muslim immigrants?

I would argue that the risks of Muslim immigrants are simply too high. As seen in Europe, Muslim immigrants have a history of non-assimiliation and of violence against the majority. They also have a history of intolerance for others, and when an area goes predominately Muslim, non-Muslims see their rights severely restricted. In addition, the religion of Islam does not see a separation of religion from state, meaning that even if your friends are well-meaning, their children may end up campaigning for the Sharia to be imposed on Muslim areas.

All in all, I don't see an upside here. If we need more workers, then we can draw from the entire non-Muslim world. If we draw from Latin American or European sources, we can have workers whose religious and cultural presuppositions are at least close to those of our own, in many respects.

This is not to say that Muslim citizens or legal residents should be stripped of their rights. This only says that as a people, we can control our borders.

When I am in Poland (the country where my family came from in the 60's and the native country of my wife), I make the same argument (in Polish, of course) only from a perspective of Polish national rights.

this doesn't pass the laugh test on a lot of levels and we've argued enough for me to know that you know better.

Are you seriously contending that FDR as at the root of WW II? That Truman had any option in Korea? I'd further argue that Johnson's only sin in Vietnam was in its prosecution. So from this menagerie we're left with Wilson and Clinton fighting elective wars.

We're also ignoring the rampant use of the US military under that noted liberal Teddy Roosevelt, the essential occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934, the non-stop intervention in Nicargua between 1909 and 1933.

So I am at a loss, if that is a criteria, to find a single "conservative" president in the past century.

to which I cannot devote the attention it merits.

First, I would not state that abandoning the myth of the complete intelligibility of existence casts us back upon the shoals of relativism.  To abandon that myth is only to abandon the idea that a disincarnate reason, abstracted from the particularities of the experiences of a given culture, or modelled after the fashion of the methods of the sciences, is the sole, or pre-eminent discourse by which we may approach and apprehend the truth.  

Second, the answer to the question of what an incompletely comprehensible human existence would look like is that it would look rather like the world we live in: a world in which a totalizing explanation, which would, of necessity, be reductive at some point, can only be experienced as in some respect dehumanizing.

Third,  I demur from the idea that postmodernists have revived, in some sense, the mysticism of the medievals, whatever that is taken to mean.  Postmodernists have merely completed an epoch in the history of Western thought that began when nominalism posited will as the supreme attribute of God, and was extended over the centuries in various doctrines related to human nature, until, at last, in the Enlightenment, we are told, "Dare to Know!"  Know what?  That we are autonomous, and must will this autonomy as the badge of our maturity.  All postmodernism did was remove the subterfuge from the Enlightenment, which assumed that autonomous men would all think largely alike.

the West (i)s the descendents of the Roman Catholics of 1500.

So from the West we should exclude Einstein, Freud, et al? Hitler was a descendant of the Catholics of 1500. And is Brazil part of the West, being a descendant of Roman Catholics of 1500? How about Angola?

and I mean that seriously. So, I have little to say about your third comment, except to say that my ambitions for human understanding are a bit more modest and of the shopkeeper variety. I don't believe that human reason is capable of comprehending God, nor can it disprove God's existence. It is, though, I think capable of understanding its own existence, of knowing what is good and what is the good life. It is from position that various cultural practices can be criticized as inhuman, or anti-human.

I do not mean to identify all opponents of the Enlightenment as like one another. But there are signficant continuities between the nihilism of Islamo-fascism and the nihilism of post-modernism.  And there are also links between the medievalism of contemporary Islam and our own medieval past.

The continuities between post-modernism and western medievalism center on the claim that knowledge is all in our head. Frankly, it isn't medievalism that I have a real problem with. Rather, it is the reactionary nostalgia that I find troubling.  

As to your first comment, I do think this human comprehensibility is not the product of pure reason, or that what it means to be human can be abstracted from what, for lack of a better word, is called culture. Nevertheless, science, in the broad sense of the term is the best tool we have telling us what is.  

On your second comment, I think that observation is important for all of us to keep in mind, since we know that the totalizing path is worse than any conceivable alternative. My account of the Enlightenment is a plural, though not relativistic one.

What I am trying to say is that you can't really be said to be defending the West unless your are willing to defend its Enlightenment.

...but not necessarily commenting (yet, at least) on Paul's post:  saying that we should tailor immigration based on generalizations of the country/area of origin is, I think, quite a far cry from some of the other things you mention: concentration camps, regulating religion, etc.   I think the point was made that tailoring of immigration limits was done for at least a period of 1920-ish to 1965, was it?  I don't think there was massive internments and religious persicution due to the immigration policy thereof.

Yes yes, WWII internments.  However, I think we can agree it's not a de facto result of immigration policy?

I think Paul raises a very valuable discussion -- there merits of which I, again, am not yet prepared to discuss directly, but in-line with the self-censoring of Press from Islam, is there an invalid (and that's a big part of the discussion) self-censoring going on with respect to the aims of liberalism -- have the "conservatives" drifted along for the ride so far as to be right-of a much "lefter" center?

Immigration policy is more of a sort of "second derivative" -- affecting rate of change -- rather than, as I would see it, interments being the function itself.

The question could be put, perhaps, more succinctly: (Classical) Liberalism to what end?  Liberalism for liberalism's sake?  Or because there's something valuable in it.

Despite your hectoring tone, I will try to answer your questions.

Lineage can me more than simple generics. For example, I count myself in the lineage of the American founders, though most of my ancestors came to these shores long after the generation of the founders had passed away.

Yes we do count Einstein and Freud. The former was a key though late participant in one of the greatest achievements of the West: the development of a true science of causality based on observation; while the latter was among the great rebels against the West, and part of the greatest rebellion in thought against the West -- the rebellion against Saint Augustine.

Hitler? What can be said about Hitler? The most wicked of all revolutionaries, the cruelest of tyrants, wildest of delusionals. All are true and more.

Brazil certainly retains a connection to the West, though it may one day be that it joins in the succession of the West, much as, say, Gaul joined the succession of Rome.

It is, though, I think capable of understanding its own existence, of knowing what is good and what is the good life.

That is, as you have the grace to admit, rather nostalgic in its own right, for the 18th century.  What is the Enlightenment account of the good life known by pure reason that does not rest either on unacknowledged traditions or simple assertions of will?

The continuities between post-modernism and western medievalism center on the claim that knowledge is all in our head.

Unpack this a bit, please.  I think I know what you mean, but the choice of the word "knowledge" seems inapposite.  Of course knowledge is in our heads.  Do you mean the impossibility of direct knowledge of things-in-themselves?  That's not a position one typically associates with the middle ages, but with Kant and his successors.  But perhaps I misunderstand.  

Frankly, it isn't medievalism that I have a real problem with. Rather, it is the reactionary nostalgia that I find troubling.

How so?

The fear of collateral damage to innocents means that too many of our warfighters must die or live with permanent damage.

The Bush Administrtion recognized early on that the small number of terrorists had to be separated from the vast majority of non-terrorists in order to create a democracy.  Too much collateral damage would create lots of dead civilians would create lots of terrorists would create lots of Coalition casualties.  By minimizing collateral damage we give our troops the best possible chance of survival.  And by any standard, the military casualties have been miniscule in historical terms, seeming to justify the policy.

Twice at least you have referred to the "mysteries" of the mediaeval world. Yes, there were mysteries, as there are mysteries today, though we being possessed by some of them, do not realize it.

But the Mediaeval world had reason to. I am often astonished by how men talk about the mediaevals as a bunch of irrationalists or even savages, as if a society of savages could have produced Aquinas. To read Aquinas is to be held at attention by one of the great masters of human reason.

In truth men forget about Aquinas because they know he was also a real saint, and thus one who knew and loved the Lord Jesus; thus they reveal that, to them, God must be the enemy of reason when in fact He is the author of it.

Paul, I'm with your tortured expose of neo-conservatism (right-wing liberalism) until you indict the Founding Fathers with the original sin of slavery. It's the trip wire for modern conservatives who while they respect Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, yet place an astoric before their names out of some sort of placation to modernity. Shame on you.

I see it differently. Slavery in America was a tutalage for a specific group of Africans. In less than 300 years (and less than 100 for the United States proper) the net effect was 4 million emancipated blacks were transported through 6000 years of civilization  to "the greatest nation on Gods green earth" to quote neo-con Micheal Medved. In short, slavery is a net gain to any black "American". 750 thousand whites who perished in the US civil war notwithstanding.

Slavery was not an "original sin". It was a "gift" lest you think the Ivory Coast is historically more beneveloent than George Washington.

And any black American today when asked if he/ she would go back in time and stop the slave trade is faced with the proposition of truth.

"But the Mediaeval world had reason TOO."

I'm butterfingers on the keyboard today.

Props for being able to say such an absurd thing with a straight post.  This is the craziest ends-justify-the-means argument I've ever read, and that says quite a lot.  Slavery was a gift, eh?  So I suppose if we put shackles on you with the promise that eight generations later your descendents will be better off than they would otherwise, that's alright by you?

The gist of your post would seem to indicate that allowing tax-paying, business-owning Arabs to remain in the country would be done with some reluctance. When you speak of "unity", . . . or do you mean it more in the sense that we should expel non-European/Western-types completely? . . . there is that undercurrent of tone that seems to indicate that you might disbelieve in the non-Europeans ability to assimilate themselves into a western society at all, and because of their tendencies to form non-integrated communities, they should be expelled. Or do you believe this only for Arabs? . . . I can't pretend to have insight into your underlying mindset. I'm just trying to clarify.

Well after that amazing little tissue of innuendo, let me clarify it for you: A Muslim is not necessarily an Arab, and it is simply a mistake (and a foolish and dangerous one at that) to even imply otherwise. I have not raised the issue of race; not once; for the rather strange reason that I think it irrelevant to the question posed in my essay.

Islam is a religion; and its members include men of a great many races. As a demographic fact, a majority (I believe) of the Arabs in America are Christians -- descendents of those driven from their own countries by Muslim rulers.

In addressing "right-wing Liberalism" you assume the existence of "left-wing Liberalism", and your discussion is focused on the difference between the two.  Your premise is flawed, big time.

American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals". - F.A. Hayek, 1960.

If you go back through your post and substitute the phrase "radicals and socialists" everywhere you wrote "Liberal", you will be much closer to the truth, but your post no longer makes any sense to you, just as it makes no sense to me.

Socialists and radicals recognize no "moral law", and are more interested in promoting "a wicked or tyrannical majority" than not.  "Abuse of ... rights" is characteristic of socialists and radicals, while "enthusiasm for liberty with an appreciation for order" and "virtue" are not.

We cannot define ourselves in terms acceptable to radicals and socialists, nor should we define ourselves in terms opposed to radicals and socialists.  But the values of the Republican Party are much closer to the liberal values of the Enlightenment, and that is where we should seek our definition of ourselves.  

Jaszkowski makes some interesting comments, but they are ancillary to the point of my essay.

... can view slavery as anything other than one of the biggest abominations of the human spirit (secondary only to genocide to my mind) is simply beyond my comprehension.

There was nothing redeeming about slavery. No bright side. No mitigating factors. No shades of gray. Only the abyss.

Men are fallen creations. We sin individually and collectively. As such, I do not look at our country as deserving more shame than others. The founding fathers, despite this monstrousity that they bought off on (and in some cases participated in), were great men who accomplished great things, and many were much more enlightened about the liberty of all men than was the norm in the world of the day.

So perhaps I too am guilty of "indicting" the founding fathers for their complicity in the abomination of slavery. I still wouldn't trade them for any other country's founders.

But they screwed up with slavery. And the country has paid for the screw up deeply. Paid in the blood of slaves and of soldiers. Paid in unbelievable financial costs. Paid in the cost of turbulent racial relations. And that is beyond the betrayal of our founding principles of liberty.

Yes, indeed it is.  It seems pretty tough for a modern conservative to bring it up without verbally shooting themselves in the leg.  It is sometimes a visibly labored task.

Slavery may have ended a long time ago, but there are still many survivors of the cross burnings, police beatings, segregation, lynchings, and church burnings.  Their direct descendants have no doubt been told the stories.  Memories don't die so quickly.  Taking the approach that it was ancient history can be very offensive to people, and understandably so.

And worst thing you can do is try to gloss over it as your post did.  It's just plain insulting.

But it does seem that all our 20th c. Presidents would qualify as liberal in your sense in one way or another.

I'm certainly no expert on St. Thomas Aquinas or Thomism, but I would certainly include him in a narrative of what I would consider the development of Western Modernity.

To say the least, was a revolutionary figure, and it is difficult to imagine a West or an Enlightenment without his influence.

Furthermore, your philosophical premise scares me to death!  Who is supposed to define who is a "subversive" in order to limit their free speech.

SOMEONE has to define it. There must be a sovereign in any polity. As I said above to Aziz, I am a republican. I believe that in the end, the people should rule. There are wise checks on the passions of the people, but in the end they must rule.

My problem with your post is that you do exactly what you accuse liberals of -- you make the "glib assumption that [your view of conservatism] constitutes the only reasonable voice."

That is probably a just criticism. I wrote polemically, no doubt. But I do think that an American Conservative must be a republican, and that on the issues of national identity the republic has settled against the liberalized immigration regime we live under. Furthermore, I think that the best way that pro-immigration Conservatives could show us some seriousness is on the specific point of Muslim immigration; and therefore I content myself to cheer your statement here:

At the same time, I have no problem whatsoever discriminating against Muslim immigrants, for two reasons:  (1) we are in a war against radical Muslims, and we still don't completely understand the nature of our enemy (e.g. are the truly moderate, peace-loving Muslims 10% of the Muslim population or 90%), and (2) there is very little doubt that it is harder for Muslims to fully integrate into a culture that is still (thankfully) predominately characterized by Judeo-Christian values.

...haven't gotten to the place where, in the past, our country decided to bring things back into balance.

Under Liberalism -- and only under Liberalism -- we might. Liberalism hypothesizes that diversity is, in the end, of greater value than security or liberty; and the right-Liberal, while perhaps not expressly subscribing to such a dogma, is, in virtue of his tincture by Liberalism, quite insufficiently prepared to refute it. We could draw out similar analyses of right-Liberalism on other specific policies questions. The question of free speech for subversives. The question of toleration of an alien religion penetrated by some significant faction of madmen. The related and uncomfortable question of a plausibly threatening minority. In all cases, it is latter-day Liberalism and not the authentic American tradition of political thought that hampers our efforts. Thus the right-Liberalism of today, much like the anti-Communist Liberalism of the twentieth century, while firm and even aggressive in pursuing our enemy abroad, is negligent in confronting the domestic agents of this enemy.

I think back to the days of McKinley (ah, yes, I remember them well. Not really, but I have read a lot about the era). It was a period of turmoil in quite a few places in the world. And then, bang, our President assassinated by, essentially, an anarchist terrorist. There were other infamous murders committed by anarchists, too. It seemed to be a disease of the mind which was spreading. It seemed to be growing, and attacking from uncoordinated cells (of perhaps just lone individuals, or pairs) sharing a common creed.

Sounds familiar to me.

I believe it was Teddy Roosevelt who basically had our laws changed so that anarchists could not even enter the country (and made it a crime for them to lie about it to gain entry-- punishable by jail, or deportation).

I think that that prohibition might even still be on the books, even if not enforced any longer. Or maybe it was removed sometime subsequent. I do not know.

But what I do know is that the country decided, after a while of watching what was happening and perhaps not quite grasping the threat at first, to protect itself. And it did so. Not without some difficulty, but not extremely difficult either.

In my opinion, the ideal form of government is the tried and true "nation-state." The only problem is the "nation" part, which implies a strong bond between its citizens.

The further away we go from that, the more impossible it becomes to operate an effective state.

Not all immigration is equal; someone from Britain can adapt pretty easily to the US and already will share much culturally. A Mexican peasant or Muslim fundamentalist might not.

I must confess that it isn't as if I have all this worked out--a full defense of the Enlightenment is a project beyond my current abilities. And I'm probably guilty of hyperbole when I said that it was the one thing worth defending. I do want to suggest, however, that in our conflict with Islamo-fascism, the Enlightenment is what we our defending. Our ability to share the earth with Islam will depend on whether or not Islam can make its peace with modernity. As many in the West have their own problems with this, I am not optimistic. I find it curious that this defense of the West seems at best reluctant to include modernity, so what we seem to have is a kind of medieval conflict with nuclear weapons.

What is the Enlightenment account of the good life known by pure reason that does not rest either on unacknowledged traditions or simple assertions of will?

I would begin such an account with an account of what a human being is. It isn't as if we have no idea--and of course our culture is a part of that story. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness  is part of it. I think the assertion of the individual will, as you describe it might be part of it as well, though I would instead describe it as an individual choosing from among a finite set of accounts of the good.

Unpack this a bit, please.  I think I know what you mean, but the choice of the word "knowledge" seems inapposite.  Of course knowledge is in our heads.  Do you mean the impossibility of direct knowledge of things-in-themselves?  That's not a position one typically associates with the middle ages, but with Kant and his successors.  But perhaps I misunderstand.

I didn't put that well. I don't mean the impossibility of direct knowledge of things-in-themselves. I probably should have used reason--and the idea I'm trying to get across (again, this is far from worked out in my own mind) is that the post-modernist refusal to privilege reason as a way of knowing seems rather close to a medieval view. I think Paul's point of considering Aquinas is well taken, however, and I may need to reconsider this point.

How so?

I don't think we can blame medievals for being medieval. I do think we know more than they do, and while the move to modernity comes at a price, it is a price worth paying. It certainly doesn't do to romanticize the past. I think the view that the west has declined is based on a romanticized view.

the Holocaust was a net benefit for the Jews since rather than a continued existence as a marginalized, (probably) persecuted diaspora they are now a viable, stable, etc. state.  While there may be a debatable point for some preternaturally objective, dispassionate philosophers you'll just end up looking like a bigot regardless of anything else.  And rightly so in my opinion since this line of reasoning is the basis for some of the more noxious conspiracy theories.  

I mean I can sit back today and say:

the world west of the Indus can thank* Athenian hegemony for the Hellenizing of their cultures since they intervened in Macedonian affairs that led to wandering sympathies and fledgling alliances with Sparta and Athens.  Less than a century later Philip was in the proverbial catbird seat looking down on the exhausted superpowers.  And his baby boy made the most of his inheritance.

All of that may be true and I doubt anyone would bat an eye even if I noted the piles of corpses but (humongous but) I'm at a distance of 2500 years.  If someone is going to formulate the slavery calculus it isn't going to be either you or me.  But if you just can't resist you'd probably be better off going to Freedom House and getting the figures for the U.S., Liberia(since there is a direct line from U.S. to slavery to the founding of the nation), and some random coastal or sub-Saharan African countries.  I think the rankings would be intuitive and generally predictable in spite of Liberia's tumultuous recent history.  Then you can knock yourself out explaining why you think that is.  I'd pass though or at the very least try it out somewhere else.  If you're going to undertake some Stoic mental exercise of "which is better" about some highly charged political topic, a political BBS would probably be the worst place to do it.

I will throw you a bone though.  I agree with you that it is silly(chauvinistic even) to try to ascribe modern sensibilities(sentimentalities?) to historical figures/events.  One decent paragraph out of three...good for baseball but little else.

I won't do a compare and contrast between the other replies and the cartoon controversy but the objectionable/offensive speech and the hackneyed emotional responses...ok, I said I wouldn't do it!  Anyways, shaming someone into silence isn't exactly on par with decapitating(or burning if you're not into hyperbole) someone into silence.

* No, I don't want to argue whether Hellenism was good or bad.  Luckily (for me) "thank" has two meanings...pick whichever you prefer.

is always an interesting proposition, since it is generally agreed that there was a high degree of diversity in the outworking of enlightenment in different nations, a fact which, in itself, should serve to puncture the pretenses of certain Enlightenment schools of thought.  If we are talking about the Enlightenment of the philosophes, characterized by the morbid obsession with abstract reason, an unholy and unhealthy dread of the particularities of national experience, a penchant for rationalistic, a priori political theories, and belief in the perfectibility of man and the promise of a future age of quasi-utopian Reason, then no, this is not worth defending, as it is both contrary to too much else that is constitutive of the Western tradition and historically productive of lurid amounts of bloodshed.  No thanks.  If we are talking about the Oh-My-God-Hume-just-showed-us-for-the-fools-we-are-so-let's-play-transcende
ntal-idealism Enlightenment of Kant, then no thanks, either.  The first Critique completes the alienation of the major halves of the tradition from one another, engendering philosophical and cultural schisms that endure to this day; the second Critique produces an ethic that is either unrelated to reality or nothing more that warmed-over late eighteenth-century Lutheran pietism with a pretense to universality; and the third Critique - well, let me just say that the whole thing about the sublime is one of the principal vehicles for the reintroduction of lame pagan myths of the unrepresentable chaos into Western thought, after Christian philosophers had banished them to the outer darkness.  And let me say, further, that the legacy of idealism as a mode of philosophy is pretty thoroughly blood-soaked.  

On the other hand, if you are referring to, say, Hume's puncturing of the idea of rationalistic politics and the myth of the social contract, as well as Burke's defense of the wisdom of inherited custom, along with The Wealth of Nations, well, those things are eminently worth defending, as is the rather moderate enlightenment of our own Founding.

Your other points have been addressed well already, so I will content myself with observing that the nihilism of postmodernism is the consequence of a heady brew of things as divergent as pagan myths of the sublime, rationalism run amok (what could be more rationalistic the Foucault's mythos of omnipresent power: the essence of social existence is just power-relations?  This is as much a rationalistic, reductive scheme as Hobbes.), and, seemingly ironically, the shipwreck of reason upon the furthest extension of the logic of nominalism.  Postmodernism is rather more than a refusal to accord reason its due; it sometimes uses reason and sometimes spurns it.  It is willful.  What postmodernism, therefore, has to do with medieval Christianity, or with Islamic nihilism, is something shrouded in great obscurity.

Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted a brilliantly composed defense of same that combined the plot and lessons of the best Star Trek episode of all-time, ie The City on the Edge of Forever

in which time travelers saved a persons life only to see her lead a peace movement that allowed Hitler to conquer the world

but some bums were fed some food during the west disarmament

joan collins was beautiful beyond belief!!!

and Booker T. Washington's identical observation in his

Up From Slavery.

I'm sure that if we go back far enough in time, we would discover that humans today are either better off due to injustices in the past or are worse off due to justice visited upon their ancestors

and thats all BR said

value judgements would require a look at the numbers and the quality of justices and injustices

more later

God's will be done

I must confess that it isn't as if I have all this worked out--a full defense of the Enlightenment is a project beyond my current abilities. And I'm probably guilty of hyperbole when I said that it was the one thing worth defending. I do want to suggest, however, that in our conflict with Islamo-fascism, the Enlightenment is what we our defending.

It's part of what we defend.  Not the whole, nor even the most important part of it, though.  I would echo Maximos's comments - much of what is known as Enlightenment thought is simply not worth defending.  Our homes, religion, and our families are.

Our ability to share the earth with Islam will depend on whether or not Islam can make its peace with modernity. As many in the West have their own problems with this, I am not optimistic. I find it curious that this defense of the West seems at best reluctant to include modernity, so what we seem to have is a kind of medieval conflict with nuclear weapons.

Why not just keep the hostile parts of the world at arm's length?  Are we really threatened if someone in the sands of Araby doesn't believe in the social contract?  Are we in fact that threatened when we have all these modern weapons?  

I would begin such an account with an account of what a human being is. It isn't as if we have no idea--and of course our culture is a part of that story.

That sounds like the natural law approach of the Catholic theologians.  Enlightenment accounts of what a human being is and what constitutes human flourishing are radically defective.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness  is part of it. I think the assertion of the individual will, as you describe it might be part of it as well, though I would instead describe it as an individual choosing from among a finite set of accounts of the good.

What limits those accounts of the good?  Whence comes the validity of those limits?  How are any such limits compatible with the good of the assertion of individual will?

I didn't put that well. I don't mean the impossibility of direct knowledge of things-in-themselves. I probably should have used reason--and the idea I'm trying to get across (again, this is far from worked out in my own mind) is that the post-modernist refusal to privilege reason as a way of knowing seems rather close to a medieval view. I think Paul's point of considering Aquinas is well taken, however, and I may need to reconsider this point.

Who knows what post-modernists believe or think?  It's the sort of phenomenon that tends to fade into nothingness the more closely you examine it.  But yes, look into Aquinas.  Reason was hardly unknown to our medieval predecessors.  Neither, for that matter, was technological progress.  What was unknown, or at least unrecorded, was the purportedly unmoored reason of Descartes, et al.

I don't think we can blame medievals for being medieval. I do think we know more than they do, and while the move to modernity comes at a price, it is a price worth paying. It certainly doesn't do to romanticize the past. I think the view that the west has declined is based on a romanticized view.

We've surely passed our peak period of artistic creativity, to name one, or of self-confidence, to name another.  

It is true that "radicals and socialists" have captured and altered irrevocably the word Liberal. That was accomplished decades ago. Jacques Barzun talks of the "great switch" of Liberalism beginning before the turn of the twentieth century. This is all an interesting discussion, but it hardly demonstrates that there is no such like as left-wing Liberalism. There has always been a left and a right wing to Liberalism, even as the philosophical structure of Liberalism itself gradually shifted left over time.

I don't oppose restrictions on Muslim immigration.  The point of my comment was that I believe that the basis of Paul's argument leads to something much more extreme than that.

He said, "The question of free speech for subversives. The question of toleration of an alien religion penetrated by some significant faction of madmen. The related and uncomfortable question of a plausibly threatening minority. In all cases, it is latter-day Liberalism and not the authentic American tradition of political thought that hampers our efforts."

This is why I said Paul was overstating his case.  His rationale and his philosophical basis would seem to justify something much more than merely limiting immigration.  He says that it is OK to limit free speech (for those here legally? -- we don't have to limit anyone's free speech if we simply expel all illegal Muslim immigrants).  He wants to not "tolerate" an "alien" religion (abolish freedom of religion for Muslims???)  And what does he propose to do with a "plausibly threatening minority" if some of those in this "minority" are already here legally, or already citizens, or native born Americans?

I might come to a very similar conclusion to Paul on the specific issue of Muslim immigration, but with a much more modest rationale.  I remain fearful of a rationale that can lead to the restriction of our freedoms that we have fought so hard to preserve.

As to your question about Classic Liberalism (by which I take it you to mean the philosophical underpinnings of our Founding Fathers) -- I say that it is worth preserving both because it is true and because it is utilitarian.  There are certain liberties we are given by our Creator, that no government should be able to take away (not even a government chosen by the majority).  And the best way to protect those liberties is to have limited government, chosen by the people.  Must we be willing to fight those (even those in our midst) who seek to destroy this?  Yes, absolutely.  But we can do so without throwing away the very freedoms we seek to protect.  

This is, by definition, a balancing act (which is why our Founding Fathers placed limits, for example, on searches and seizures, but did not prohibit them altogether).  My concern is that we not use either the rhetoric of modern liberalism (which considers diversity, toleration and a broad definition of "civil liberties" as the highest of all values, without regard to security) or the rhetoric of fascism (which considers "unity," rejection of those who are different and security as the highest of all values, without regard to liberty).  I'm not acusing Paul of being a fascist, but I would appreciate him not accusing those of us who tilt the balance more in favor of liberty of being modern (or in Paul's words "latter day") liberals.

Paul,

I have a feeling we would really enjoy each other over a beer.  And I have a feeling that we would agree more than disagree if we were speaking in person instead of in the blogosphere (there are advantages and disadvantages to this forum).  But your polemic and incendiary writing style drives me crazy.

I have a question concerning your statement "I am a republican. I believe that in the end, the people should rule. There are wise checks on the passions of the people, but in the end they must rule."

Do you believe the checks on the majority are merely "wise" and utilitarian checks, or are they a function of Natural Law (i.e. "certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator")?  If the former, what protects us from fascism imposed by the majority?  If the latter, then isn't there an external (i.e. Natural Law) check on the majority?

Given your statements about the nature of the West, I would have assumed you to be a believer in Natural Law, but maybe I'm mistaken.

is how to minimize our casualties? I do not see the evidence for that.

This is an exercise in nation building, where the desired outcome is a Democracy which is an ally in the GWOT. I understand the argument that we must suffer more dead and wounded to achieve that goal. I do not subscribe to that position, but it is consistent with the war's prosecution. I see no evidence that we value our guys more than additional collateral damage.

Whether this is due to compliance with 'Just War' doctrine, an attempt to retain support at home, garner support abroad, or playing to the left is unclear. The results, however, are clear. They are that we have more casualties than necessary, and fewer resources.

This is a unproven and costly approach. Its duration puts us in a weaker position to deal with Iran and Syria. How much more difficult is a preemptive strike in either country now? This is an instance of the self-referential problem writ large. Expecting Iraqis to respond with actions which improve American self-interest is not a likely outcome. We should crush the insurgency now, and include incursions into Syria and Iran to do it.  

Jacques Barzun talks of the "great switch" of Liberalism beginning before the turn of the twentieth century.

Probably not, since M. Barzun was born in 1907 and lives today in San Antonio.  (Just kidding, I know what you mean.)

Barzun also speaks of "the reversal of Liberalism into its opposite", but why then do we allow these socialists and radicals to define the terms of the debate?  The term "liberal" has a noble lineage, but socialists and radicals are among the most degraded and unenlightened people on the planet, right along with their fellow terrorists of the Islamist variety.  

We err in allowing radicals and socialists to debate on their own perverse terms.  Radicals and socialists encompass great swathes of the antique media, academia, contemporary religion, and the Democratic Party.  It is foolish to allow them to degrade our language in pursuit of their corrupt and inefficient goals.

In terms of the ideals upon which this country was founded, John Kerry and Michael Moron are radicals and socialists.  Stand up and say so, and clarify the terms of the debate.

Then the primary war focus... is how to minimize our casualties?

I did not state, hint, imply, or contemplate that the primary war focus is how to minimize our casualties.  You want to be frivolous, go somewhere else.  Try Daily Kurse.

Do you suppose we may have reached or are reaching a similar point in history?

to refer to such a thing as a unified slave culture, separate from that of whites and freedmen?  Did such a thing exist?  Given the restrictions on the movement and education of slaves, and their disparate places of origin in Africa and the New World, it would seem their only unity would be their common plight, and whatever they had picked up in the way of language, religion, and customs from their masters.  They would seem to be people whose history and culture had been taken from them.  

It is difficult to respond to this without taking up the `us' and `them' words that the author so artfully avoided. Not having his writing skill I do not even attempt it.

"Right wing liberalism..."

"...only on occasion turns around, with impatience and annoyance, to haughtily dismiss its non-Liberal critics. In this it looks suspiciously like standard Liberalism, not least in its inclination to narrow the field of debate.

Every system of thought, including yours, has its ideas which are going to be held as fundamental and thus subject to criticism as haughty. I am not ashamed to admit that the mythology I have tried to construct aims at approaching universal truth. Others seem to take as fundamental that that endeavor is just plain stupid. To answer the criticism I am willing subject my mythology and its bootstrapping to scrutiny, and to let it stand on no more than its merits. But I am determined to avoid the pit of failing to have faith in what I believe to be true.

And since a man who doubts the wisdom of Democracy in principle, perforce marks himself as non-Liberal, his view is really not taken seriously.

It depends on what you have to say and how you justify it. And it should be no surprise that anyone who is bucking the conventional beliefs and institutions that have proven practical merit has a steep hill to climb. It is a responsibility called `burden of proof.'

The attempt at guilt by association (between Left and Right Liberalism) betrays you. And I'll answer the accusation of commensurate `prejudice' only glibly (with due apology) since that seems so fashionable here. Show me the Rorty.

And your `tangled accretions,' though prevalent in `folk' attitudes, are actually only associated with our creedal ideas in much finer form. To correct course, one mainly needs to chip from the core truths the accretions to the core truths that entered in the mid twentieth century through the Standard Social Science Model, i.e. cultural relativism.

Is it wrong to read `domestic security through immigration control' as the primary motivation behind this essay? To that extent I am happy to argue that such a course correction may be achieved without throwing overboard the universal truths that still motivate the less parochial among us. And in doing this I refute your assertions regarding the instincts of Classical Liberalism; those perceptions are, I think, flawed.

We choose not to discriminate against Muslims because it violates our principles to discriminate against people based on their religion (as we understand the word). Since that is the well-received status quo it ought to be up to you to prove that principle wrong, but if you want to put that onus on me by claiming it is haughtily unfair to assert it... like I said before, I'll bootstrap it.

Your argument for such discrimination doesn't justify overthrowing that principle. In fuller development it works out to throwing out the universal for the sake of `unity,' i.e., the parochial. Others have critiqued the account of history you offer as justification. So...

Back to the `big philosophical question,' and the `enervating' problem with Classical Liberalism, a refutation is here offered as sufficient.

There is a principle to be followed, no mere parochial opinion. Those ideas which would dethrone the universal truths in our creed are seditious; they are wrong and they must be vigilantly quarantined; our goal is to emasculate them. The practice of Islam as religion should be protected even though we may believe that scrutiny and time will show it does not emanate from the divine. The Political component of Islam is another matter. It is hostile to the liberty that we practice.

It easy to see as a matter of principle that one who wishes to take away freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, should not be permitted to insist on those rights in the course of a campaign to subjugate us to a political system that does not honor them. War is the right analogy here and it applies in the realm of ideas as well as in the realm of military statecraft. This conclusion and its policy implications is a consistent derivation of principles. It maintains honor and respect for religion (as we understand it) and targets hostile political ideas.

Thus one should be able to, in full consonance with the principles of Classical Liberalism, enact immigration policies hostile to adherents of Political Islam;  and furthermore to engage in other manners of law and war on adherents of Political Islam, with no neglect of such adherents in our midst. To do so, this distinction between the religious and the political must first become part of the national dialogue and win the support of the people. The precise nature, strength and life-span of this threat needs to be formed in consensus.

Muslims who accept liberty, et al, and consequently reject Political Islam are in our fold. In the broad sweep of your policy you do them an injustice. Thus you needlessly make me rise to their defense against you whom I am allied to by heritage. It is as if you want to make me choose between the universal truths and our heritage because the only confidence you can muster is in your heritage. Y'all seem to me to be victims of the relativism, failed confidence in reason springing from the Standard Social Science Model. What I read between the lines is: a lack of confidence in our ability to comprehend the universal which has produced a slide in to a peculiar brand of culturalism and an esoteric epistemology which has an aroma of mysticism.

At any rate, whether what I read in is right or wrong, I maintain confidence in our ability to approach universal truth by use of the facilities nature and god has provided us and thus cannot throw this project over for a claim that it is opposed to the interests of our heritage. The heritage is valued and will be defended but within the scope set by the universal principles. The principles will be defended vigorously and there is nothing in them which enervates this defense.

This conception of mine is more distant from left wing liberalism than the one you have staked out. Where they lack confidence in the universal, they invest themselves in the RBC. What I read between the lines suggests a nearly parallel step.

was not intended. Perhaps I misunderstood your line of reasoning. You asserted:

By minimizing collateral damage we give our troops the best possible chance of survival.

I inferred that the best possible chance of survival would minimize our casualties. Morover, you go on to claim:

And by any standard, the military casualties have been miniscule in historical terms, seeming to justify the policy.

This seems to use minimizing casualties to justify the Administration strategy. However, based on your reaction, I conclude that this must be the source of my misunderstanding. Please accept my apology for that.

Your Parthian shot was unwarranted, but it is an interesting variation on the ad hominem argument.

We choose not to discriminate against Muslims because it violates our principles to discriminate against people based on their religion (as we understand the word).

But if our understanding differs from theirs, and we are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that their understanding differs, what then?  Shall we let them in by the million, then be surprised when they march in the tens of thousands demanding redress for their humiliation, and the curtailment of all the rights we thought were universal and universally valued?

Muslims who accept liberty, et al, and consequently reject Political Islam are in our fold.

In other words, we accept liberals into our liberal order, regardless of their nominal religious allegiance.  How...open-minded of us.  The difficulty arises that nowhere in the Islamic world is this the way Islam is understood or practiced.  The overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't liberals, despite (liberal) theories that assume that liberalism equals rationality as such.  And how could they be?  The creation of modern, liberal man was a project of centuries of indoctrination and yes, coercion.  That process has not occurred in the Muslim world, and may never occur.

All have their roots in a rich African-American musical tradition that dates back to the days of slavery.

Slaves were ripped away from their homes, but brought their culture with them. Mixed up and stirred around, and partially destroyed no doubt, but not killed. And then developed further in the US.

Developing culture is one of the things people do. Even under horrible oppression.

Southern hospitality was in fact African hospitality.  Mammy taught the little white ladies and gentlemen how to behave as a good African would do on the Old Continent.

Southern hospitality was in fact African hospitality.  Mammy taught the little white ladies and gentlemen how to behave as a good African would do on the Old Continent.

slavery to Englishmen?

couldnt resist

forgive

Scots-Irish may have had a little bit to do with the culture of the south with a dash of west africa for good measure! The climate also probably contributed as well. The yanks were always in a hurry to get in out of the cold!!! They would freeze trying to be hospitable!

My focus was meant to be: to what end, liberalism?  Not that it is not valuable, true, utilitarian, etc.  But how far should it be taken: to the end that says that all should have rights to do as they will?  All should have rights to do as they will, less the injury of others?  ... less the destruction of other's property?  ... less the destabilization of society, without damage to another's property?

I must confess that having recently embarked on my first reading of Plato's The Republic, I'm fascinated by some of the prescience I see therein -- perhaps overly enamoured, but that's where I am -- in which he says:

Thus liberty, getting out of all order and reason, leads to the harshest form of slavery.

 Now, to me that sounds similar to what what Paul has suggested.  Plato goes on to note that such an extension ends in Tyranny.  I would quote Benedict XVI here, as well, in that "tyranny of libertinism."

For what I regard as an instance of this, having recently read (yet another) study regarding the effects of the underminning of marriage, and with specific focus on the "Definition of Marriage" question -- not trying to go off-topic, but as an example -- how does one defend against an idea such as the current focus on Marriage and traditional Families as being an religious artifact?  How about arguing against "Gay Marriage" without limiting "Liberty for Liberty's sake?"  I'm not sure that there's a Libertarian argument against these -- wouldn't Liberty say that "as long as you're not breaching someone else's life/property/happiness" live-and-let-alone?  But surely it's wrong to destabilize society in such a way?

Further, he goes on to show:  

And therefore, being desirous of placing him under a rule like that of the best, we say that he ought to be a servant of the best, in whom the Divine rules; not, as Thrasymachus supposed, to the injury of the servant, but because every one had better be ruled by divine wisdom dwelling within him; or, if this is impossible, then by an external authority, in order that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals.

And, I would argue, this is mostly in-line with what John E. espouses further down (#64): Namely that, as I read it (and admit that I may be quite deficient in my ability to understand), in realizing Islam to be both Religious and Political, insofar as Islam (mainly the Political aspect) conflicts with our concept of Liberty, we must protect our concept of Liberty to the detriment of Islam; yet, insofar as Islam is Religious only, we must accept the freedom thereof, in defense of our concept of Liberty.  And while he High-Fived, I might venture to assert that "plausibly threatening minority" is supported in his statement of:

Thus one should be able to, in full consonance with the principles of Classical Liberalism, enact immigration policies hostile to adherents of Political Islam;  and furthermore to engage in other manners of law and war on adherents of Political Islam, with no neglect of such adherents in our midst. To do so, this distinction between the religious and the political must first become part of the national dialogue and win the support of the people. The precise nature, strength and life-span of this threat needs to be formed in consensus.

Or am I missing the boat here -- is the "plausible minority" the 'Political Islam' or the 'Religious' one?  Perhaps Paul was indistinct as to this refinement, and implied the construct as non-separable? (Not to put words in anyone's mouth....)

Or, further, perhaps the Facisim to which Islam appears to be quite prone implies that it is inherently a difficult separation to make: could the established "non-Political Muslims" at some point be "radicalized" -- fascisized (?).  Is this, perhaps, indicative of what has happened in France/Britain where second- and third-generation decendants are, apparently, more radical than their first-generation parents?

I could certainly accept that, as the guiding Religious-Political entity at the time, Christianity went through a similar transformative process, and arrived at what we now have as "the West."

The demarkation is really the question, though, I guess?  In France's "West" the implementation is decidedly different than in the U.S.'s "West," as yet again from the U.K.'s "West."

Apologies for any lack of clarity through sleepiness.

I had hoped that the first interrogation you make was clearly addressed in the content of the comment from which you quote. As I reread it, it seems to me that it is. In light of the elaboration I gave to it in our discussion in AaronVB's diary I'll forgo reiterating it and simply assume the fault for an inability to express myself clearly. Or perhaps I fail to comprehend the issue which you are raising here.

Regarding the second point, let me know your assessment of the following people and organizations:

http://www.libforall.org/news-WSJ-right-islam-vs.-wrong-islam.html. I'd ask you to do more than just read this article; the factual claims made at the web site may encourage you even if they do contradict your assertion. Their demographic strategy seems plausible and hopeful. If their claims are bunk, I'd like to know.

www.freemuslims.org is small, but they certainly seem to me to be allied with us against Political Islam.

Aziz at http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/ is a liberal Muslim. Some, but certainly not most, of his associated web sites leave me with bits of doubt

As I read Mahmood's comments at http://mahmood.tv/index.php/blog/2158 i clearly see a 'modern' thinking Muslim.

There are others to be found in the MSM.

Your last sentence inspires a question. What is your particular view of the future with respect to the conflicting ideas of which we speak?

have had something to do with the aristocratic code of honor of the Southern planter class, too?

in addition to scots-irish and africa and the planter aristocratic gentility may be the most important. I'm not sure of their ethnicity as in what part of Brittain they came from

i am now, writing a long essay for publication on three books as they relate to each other

 the new Sowell Black redneck-white liberals book and Webbs Born fighting book and re-reading the 1941  classic "Mind of the South" in conjunction with the book I am working on and to do a long scholarly article and long column book review to publish on townhall.com and to try and publish elsewhere.

Re: Instead I'll defer to Lawrence Brown, who in his unjustly neglected masterpiece The Might of the West, defined the West as the descendents of the Roman Catholics of 1500.

An unsatisfactry defintion, as it dumps all of Latin America and now even large parts of Africa into the West, while excluding core parts of Europe (e.g., Greece, without which historically our civilization would not exist in its current form).

I would suggest canning the term The West as a Cold War relic and instead conisdering "Europe" or "Euro-Christian" as the proper name of the civilization north of the Mediterranean and east of the Urals, with extensions to North America and Australia. Everything from Russia to Portugal to the USA, Canadam Australia and New Zealand shares three very deep roots: the heirtage of the Indo-European trbial peoples of Europe, the heritage of Greece and Rome, and the Christian religion.

Oh, I understand now.  I thought you meant "to what end?" in the sense of "to what purpose."  But you meant "to what degree."

To answer that question, I have two thoughts:  (1) I pretty much trust the judgment of our Founding Fathers (see the Bill of Rights) to define the basic outlines of "to what degree" we should take liberalism, which is why I get my back up when Paul hints at restricting freedom of speech and freedom of religion; and (2) it is clear that those rights are not absolute, but the state should have a fairly high burden when restricting them, and the burden should be higher the more severe the restrictions are.  There may be room around the edges to figure out how to apply these freedoms, but they are crucial to protect.

If one starts from the premise above, then gay marriage is a non-issue.  Where in the Constitution is there a fundamental right to be gay or to marry?  The state can therefore regulate marriage. And history, tradition, biology and even religious heritage can all be reasons for the majority, through their representatives, to define it as only between a man and a woman.  Classical Liberalism doesn't have a problem with that (although libertarianism may -- but I'm not a libertarian).

Likewise, there is no right to immigration.  (Please read above -- I am generally very pro-immigration, but no one has a right to immigrate here.)  So I have no problem discriminating in the area of immigration on the basis of religion, be it political or religious Islam.  Besides, it would be extremely difficult to separate out the two forms of Islam in immigration policy.  And for that matter, I have no problem with placing limits (both numerical limits and additional restrictions on the conditions of them staying) on immigration from entire countries that have large populations of Muslims, again, because it is the most practical way to limit the immigration of people intent on destroying our way of life.

Again, my problem with Paul (on this point) is not his conclusion about Muslim immigration, but his rationale for it.  My concern about Paul's rationale (as he described it himself) is that it would arguably support limiting the freedoms of those already here legally (including citizens).

As to your infatuation with Plato, I can only say read with your eyes open.  Clearly, he was a brilliant philosopher, but I want no part of his desire for a benelovent dictator or philosopher king.  Think what power did to King David (how can a "man after God's own heart" get as power hungry and destructive as him) or King Solomen (how can a man who prayed for and received wisdom from God have destroyed a nation like he did).  Or, if you are more of a Tolkein fan, think of how both Gandalf and Galadriel refused to even touch the Ring because they knew that such power would corrupt them, even though they would start out with good intent.  So, by all means, read Plato.  But read him with more than a few grains of salt.

As far as Plato: yeah, I definitely notice that, and update it with respect to what has been proven workable, and fully support the soverignty as defined in the American way.  I just think there's a lot to be said for the extrapolation of Liberty for Liberty's sake in what he says.  And, I think, to a degree that's where I saw Paul going with his post -- per my reading the basis was more of a "are we allowing the idea of (classical) Liberalism, as good as it is, to blind us to some hard answers to hard questions which seem to run counter to our current understanding of classical liberalism.

I think Acton very .. err .. powerfully modified any notion of absolute power vis-a-vis Plato's philosopher king.

But, as I said, I think I see a premise (which may or may not have been, itself, expanded beyond all reason per Paul's logic) in Paul's argument that is not well-developed in the common/"popular" conservative/classical-liberal thought: namely, that of the limitation of liberty vs. the extenuation for it's own sake.

Now name a single president in the history of the United States who doesn't qualify as liberal.  The problem is that conservative philosophers (or philosophers-lite) want to pretend that the United States is something it isn't.  Right-liberalism and left-liberalism have dominated U.S. politics and culture from the beginning.  Honest-to-goodness conservatism (whatever that is - are we including Burke?) has had maybe one president: Washington.

When Buckley stops to stand on the tracks, it might be wise tactically for him to do so outside of the train station.

The value judgment is quite simple.  The human cost of bondage to the actual victims of slavery cannot be aggregated into some tidy numbers reflecting the quality of living between the ancestors of slaves and the ancestors of unenslaved West Africans.  We are not even talking some sort of "good of the many outweighing the good of the few" concept - to even use Rathbone's concept of "gift" you would have to accept the systemic and involuntary sacrifice of generations of Africans to arrive at the current "good" as the acceptable price of doing business.  That is a calculus I reject.  Playing historical "ifs" makes for fascinating parlor olympics but little else.

I failed to read emotion in any of the response posts.  If I had written what I really felt, I would have probably punched my RedState card for the last time.

Where can I find the hackneyed emotion contained in the responses?  How is this parallel to the cartoon controversy?

parts.  As for how trying to bully someone into silence parallels the cartoon controversy...well, that's how.  I can atleast understand one of them though.  I'll let you practice your powers of discernment on figuring out which that might be.

Playing historical "ifs" makes for fascinating parlor olympics but little else.

I GENERALLY AGREE. And I think all our friend was doing was citing the reality of serendipity over generations. I didnt see the use of the word gift as venal. Booker T Washington thanked God for his "luck."

Yes, I am a believer in Natural Law. But we must still have a government. And the problem with government -- all government -- is that it magnifies human fallenness and sin. All forms of goverment will inevitably violate Natural Law; the question is which form will minimize these violations and mitigate their consequences.

With that preface, I say again I am a republican. The checks on majority will (one of the most important being, of course, representative rather than direct democracy) are, I guess, utilitarian in the highest sense; they derive from the most practical of political virtues -- prudence.

The specific manifestations of these checks in any given circumstance will of course differ, which means that discerning a perfect "ideal" republic is simply impossible. Prudence and circumstance, as Burke taught, must always have some impact on the matter and thus the abstraction has only limited utility.

Nor do I say that the republic is the best form in all circumstances. Emphatically it is not. I say only that it is the best form, here, now.

I think the sort of republicanism given to us in the Constitution and The Federalist might best be described as "deliberative." The majority passion or momentary whim is checked, but the ultimate considered will of the majority, over time, will govern. Is this arrangement perfect? Hardly. For even the considered, deliberate will of the majority, tested over time, may be wicked.

This is why I said Paul was overstating his case.  His rationale and his philosophical basis would seem to justify something much more than merely limiting immigration.  He says that it is OK to limit free speech (for those here legally? -- we don't have to limit anyone's free speech if we simply expel all illegal Muslim immigrants).  He wants to not "tolerate" an "alien" religion (abolish freedom of religion for Muslims???)  And what does he propose to do with a "plausibly threatening minority" if some of those in this "minority" are already here legally, or already citizens, or native born Americans?

I think you are misreading me here. Each of these points I carefully and deliberately formulated as "questions." As in difficult political questions that do not admit of easy answers, and that open up before us the great questions of political philosophy.

If you are reading these statements about "the question of free speech for subversives" and "the question of toleration of an alien religion penetrated by some significant faction of madmen,"  as not questions at all, but implied and strident answers, then you are simply misreading me. You write, "[Paul] wants to not 'tolerate' an 'alien' religion." Except that I only said that there is a  "question of toleration of an alien religion."

Manifestly the question of free speech for subversives is a difficult one; I have no facile answer to offer; we Americans have wrestled with it at regular intervals, and with only limited resolution, throughout our history. Similarly for the alien religion question. These are hard questions. Of that there is no doubt. I should have been more clear in saying so.

But I do think that Liberalism has become a profound hindrance on our public discourse on these matters; it is defeating our ability to deliberate and decide as a sovereign people. And part of its narcotic effect is evident in its migration onto the political Right.

I have been uncharitable with you in our past exchanges, John. I apologize for that.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the two policy proposals I offered -- cessation of Muslim immigration and deportation of all Muslims here illegally -- are unjust to Muslims?

I think we can pin down our disagreement pretty well if you answer Yes. In my view, since a nation is not obligated by any law of objective morality to accept, as a matter of policy, any particular class of people, it is not an injustice. Liberalism, as I understand it, insists that we not discriminate against any class of people, period. Thus it posits that to close our doors to Muslims as a class is to commit an injustice against them. We are in the presence of a philosophical disagreement.

A further question is, where does the American political tradition come down on this? There I think I am on solid grounds in saying that that the American tradition is on the non-Liberal side; that it, in short, has never (at least until very recently) recognized a moral law which requires a nondiscriminatory immigration policy.

On the other hand, if I read you correctly you are  actually on-broad with the immigration proposals, but have grave doubts about the philosophical principles by which I arrived at those proposals. And it is on this point where you reintroduce the Creedalist arguments.

I admit to a certain impatience with the Creedalist position, as you may have guessed; I admit, further, that I see alot of overlap between the Creedalist and the right-Liberal. But let me see if I can clarify things a bit.

You write, "We choose not to discriminate against Muslims because it violates our principles to discriminate against people based on their religion (as we understand the word)." The "we" in that statement, it seems to me, is closer to "we Liberals" than "we Americans"; and -- what is my larger point -- the two are not synomymous. There is, of course, the First Amendment, which protects the "free exercise" of religion; but it is not obvious that this clause implies a total equality among religions. Has a man's free exercise of religion been infringed if his sect's houses of worship are not, say, given tax-exempt status? Is his free exercise infringed if his sect becomes the declared object of strict surveilance? Is his free exercise infringed if his coreligionists are prevented from entering the country?

In short, it may be (1) that the principle of nondiscrimination is a very different thing from our traditional constitutional protections of religion; (2) that the principle of nondiscrimination is more a Liberal principle than an American one; and (3) that the introduction of nondiscrimination has derailed an authentic American tradition.

I dispute that making these distinctions pushes me toward relativism.

I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't see anyone saying Rathbone can't post what he did. If strong disagreement is bullying, well, you operate in a different free speech universe than I do.    

Thanks, Paul, for your continued patience with me in our disagreements.

I accept your explanation that your questions were truly questions, and not just rhetorical devices.  That makes a lot more sense.

To the extent you are saying that "latter-day-liberal" thought prevents us from even asking those questions, I would agree that the pervasiveness of "politically correct speech" would discourage an honest discussion of such issues as being beyond the pale.  I simply don't agree that most conservatives (or even a sizeable minority of conservatives) fit that definition.  I believe the vast majority of conservatives are willing to enter into such a discussion, but may disagree on the answers to such questions.

Let's put it this way:  We both agree that it is crucial to fight our adversaries, and that radical Islam is an adversary.  We also both agree that we are, and should be, a nation of limited government, and that the government should not infringe any legal resident's (and certainly any citizen's) freedom of speech or freedom of religion without substantial justification.

The real question, therefore, is how to fight the enemy while at the same time protecting our freedoms to the greatest extent possible (but without committing cultural or political suicide).  As you have said, those are extremely difficult questions, and I don't presume to have the answers either.

I guess the bottom line of what I object to is the implication that I am a "latter-day-liberal" merely because I might answer those questions differently than you.

that he was a very left-leaning Democrat who was comfortable with the military, patriotic, and willing to fight. Being a liberal doesn't mean, necessarily, being Jane Fonda. That was my point.

Did Truman have an option in Korea? It's a matter of debate, but then again, that wasn't my point. Truman was a man of the center-left. Again, he was pro-military, and unafraid to fight in the pinch. Again, that was my point. Liberals in the United States as president have a track record of using force.

Johnson, also, was not afraid of using force in Vietnam. I am not saying that if you use force you are automatically a liberal. I am simply stating that being stridently patriotic and willing to use force does not automatically make one a conservative. The charicatures of 'militant conservative' and 'wimpy liberal' don't fit. If you want to differentiate between 'liberal' and 'conservative,' then you have to get into the realm of domestic policy, in my opinion.

By the way, Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. At the time, most of the conservative thinkers were still in the Democratic Party, especially in the South (the home of state's rights), so you are correct in pointing out that as a Republican his military actions would be those of a big government conservative. They do indeed predate Bush I, but I started my thinking with Wilson, who obviously came later.

Wilson began the occupations in Haiti and Nicaragua which Republicans perpetuated. But again, Wilson is the epitome of a standard liberal who was unabashed in his use of force.

'Liberalism' is not the same as Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, and even John Kerry. My concern is that thinking that is the case can blind Republicans to big-government schemes that are assumed to be sponsored by 'conservatives' who are labeled as such only on the basis of foreign policy credentials.

limited, enumerated powers of the Federal Government as set forth in the Constitution, then I would say that most Presidents prior to Lincoln would qualify under that definition.

Even after Lincoln, it wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt that the President's authority was recast as being able to do whatever the Constitution does not forbid, as opposed to only being able to do what the Constitution allowed.

Personally, my favorite President was Grover Cleveland. His famous line was, "What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?"

I know that you, Paul, have very little patience with the creedalist position (and I am more of a creedalist than not).

However, I agree that you frame the question correctly when you say, "In short, it may be (1) that the principle of nondiscrimination is a very different thing from our traditional constitutional protections of religion; (2) that the principle of nondiscrimination is more a Liberal principle than an American one; and (3) that the introduction of nondiscrimination has derailed an authentic American tradition."

I see nothing in the "American Creed" or the "authentic American tradition" that says we cannot EVER discriminate.  I agree with you that this is more of a "Liberal principle than an American one."

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion, on the other hand, are part of the "American Creed" and "authentic American tradition,"  and we ought to hold the government to an extremely high burden before trampling on those rights for our citizens.

Let me say at the outset that I agree with Sam's response.

The application of the ideas we are discussing are monumental and it is important that we draw the lines very finely, as a small error in the premise calculation will be multiplied into a large one in the application calculation. I am all for making an earnest effort to raise these ideas up into the national consciousness, though my scope of influence is small.

I appreciate the respect - you have mine - I'd like to think we can both benefit as a result non-adversarial dialogue.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the two policy proposals I offered -- cessation of Muslim immigration and deportation of all Muslims here illegally -- are unjust to Muslims?

Yes...and I intuited that this is your litmus test, but before you throw me over, please listen closely to the distinction I have made, because in the end I have the same objective that you do. In the end, I believe I offer the achievable route for accomplishing the very thing that you and I both want to accomplish.

The policy proposals you offer should not be aimed at those who practice Islam as religion with fidelity to the First Amendment. It should be aimed at adherents of Political Islam which is seditious.

This approach has a realistic chance of overcoming the popular objections which will mute your 'no obligation' argument...a realistic chance of reaching the broad level of acceptance necessary for implementation...precisely because it is consistent with our traditional principles.

You may raise a practical objection, that this distinction cannot be made. I say put the onus on the immigrant/visitor. In order to enter or stay, one should be required to answer questions designed to show either rejection of acceptance of Political Islam. No rejection, no entry. Lies convict spies.

Your policy is based on belief (not race) at any rate, just as mine is. People can lie about a belief. A lie which represents sedition attaches to a harsher deterrent.

Liberalism, as I understand it, insists that we not discriminate against any class of people, period.

I am not educated thoroughly enough to understand the precise application of the labels. I think of myself, correctly or not I am not sure, as sympathetic to Classical Liberalism. At any rate, I have no sympathy with the anti-discrimination cornerstone of leftist liberalism. I am for all kinds of discrimination. Discriminate against sociopaths. Enshrine discrimination in our Constitution against single people (I am one) in favor of married people because it is good for society. Discriminate against those making war on us...adherents of Political Islam.

Absolute non-discrimination is not a requirement of the kind of Liberalism that I associate myself with. But again, I don't claim to be an expert on the labels.

On the other hand, if I read you correctly you are  actually on-broad with the immigration proposals, but have grave doubts about the philosophical principles by which I arrived at those proposals.

If I have not made myself clear yet, I am on board with immigration proposals which define the target as adherents of Political Islam, not, more broadly, Muslims.

This is constructive in that it opens an ideological front on which to battle our enemy and makes allies of those which would otherwise be in the cold or else natural targets of enemy proselyting.

This is also consistent with our principles which promote a non-violent solution in which the truth of our various ideas can be worked out in peace. (Of course, no such option is possible for those who reject our principles...aka creed).

-----

To your clarification paragraphs.

I am not sufficiently educated to dispute about which one of us has the most legitimate claim to "American" tradition. I do note that others challenged some of you historical claims. I have not checked whether you have lately rebutted them. I am not sure it advances our dialogue to haggle over this although I know it is important to the question of which one of has the burden of proof.

Perhaps my clarification above about discrimination is sufficient to relax your urge to pursue this point. If not I will do my best to answer it. And to assure you further, I agree that there is nothing in our creed that asserts 'equality' of religions. One ought certainly be truer than another. I believe that to be the case and the truth-values will ultimately be judged. Just not by the state, which is the religious liberty meme that the founders of our country were the first to enshrine, if not the first to discover.

And to all those questions, I answer that the mentioned actions are valid as actions directed against Political Islam, but not as actions directed against Islam as religion for the same reason they are not valid as directed against Christianity, Buddhism, Bahaiism, etc.

------

To the 1 2 3... I reiterate my agreement with you that nondiscrimination is not an authentic 'American' tradition.  But nondiscrimination as a principle as you describe does not attach to Classical Liberalism as I understand it. I do not find it in our creed (as defined in the recent diaries upon which we have commented).

-----

As to the speculated infections of relativism, this is a question that has been presenting in my mind as a result of a number of comments. Perhaps I should devote a diary to it in order to solicit (likely brutal) clarifications. It is certainly not explicitly stated or advocated. The comments to which I refer suggest to me a general lack of confidence in the inevitability of our heritage to survive in a free market of ideas. And furthermore there seems to be a tacitly agreed upon assumption that we haven't discovered any universal truths and/or that universal truths are not our goals, and/or are not reachable. I take this from the arguments against Creedalism. The fallback position is to rally around our WASP cultural heritage, the justification for which is in an epistemology which is apparently beyond my reach and apparently a reflection of my "immense intellectual poverty" as one commentator indirectly suggests.

In my view, the universal values reflected in our 'creed', when accepted and enforced, establish an environment of civility where conflict between our various ideas can sort themselves out without violence. Our heritage is the one most directly responsible for this environment, for the successes achieved, for the institutions produced. I am confident that our memes will continue to be adopted. I am their advocate by word and deed. And to the extent that new ones take hold due to their generally received value, we all benefit and avoid stagnation. This is not diversity for diversities sake but for growth that will enrich us all. Non-zero sum conflict on the basis of our creed is a path into the future leading toward global comprehension of what can be known as true.

If you are not a relativist and if you believe in the efficacy of reason to learn and know that which is true, then it seems you would have the confidence to trek this path. If you are not a relativist but do not believe in the efficacy of reason, then what is your epistemological access to what can be known as true? This is an invasive question and I will not demand an answer, but it explicates the intuition that presents as I read the comments in the creedalism discussion.

Thanks for your consideration.

After reading your replies to Sam and specifically #84, I suspect the speculations in the latter part of my comment may be premature or due to my ignorance or failure to properly grasp the depths of your political philosophy.

In that you grant Natural Law, which seems to be a grant of the universal, it seems I may have misjudged you. I don't have the political science background to attach all the normative definitions to the concepts you mention but my common sense approach permits me to tag along with you as far as I understand you.

Peace

An article in yesterday's (2/13) WSJ is on point. It is subscription so I will email it to you.

In Denmark, the principal target of Mr. Abu-Laban's fury is a fellow immigrant of Syrian-Palestinian origin, Naser Khader. An elected member of the Danish parliament, he last week announced the formation of a "moderate Muslim network," a group of mostly professional and established immigrants. "This is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of democracy and antidemocracy," says Mr. Khader, who accuses the preacher of hijacking the cartoon crisis to advance a fundamentalist agenda.

Mr. Khader, 42 years old, who has the word "democracy" tattooed on his arm in Arabic, and Mr. Abu-Laban, 60, who stresses the sanctity of Shariah, or Islamic law, stand at opposite ends of the debate. Each claims to speak for a majority of European Muslims. One represents those who are well integrated in European society and are often very flexible in their faith, the other those who are far more comfortable speaking in Arabic and are sternly pious...

In his sermon Friday, Mr. Abu-Laban warned of a "third global war" if Europe doesn't accommodate Islam. The following day, Mr. Khader gathered with his supporters to draft a charter for their new organization. The group, they decided, would welcome "all Muslims who are committed to the constitution, to law-based state, to democracy and human rights." Mr. Abu-Laban, said Mr. Khader, wouldn't qualify.

Folks like Kahder are allies...Seems they join us in targeting the advocates of the "third global war." Khader's charter points the way.

   

Props for being able to say such an absurd thing with a straight post.  This is the craziest ends-justify-the-means argument I've ever read, and that says quite a lot.  Slavery was a gift, eh?  

Excuse me, but it most certainly was more then a gift, it was a boon to Africans.

African slaves in America were much better off than as slaves in Africa. Caucasions did not descend on the shores of the Dark Continent and round up the primitive, barbaric peoples. They were already enslaved,  being the spoils of tribal warfare. Tribal chieftains sold their slaves to Europeans, as did the Arab peoples who enslaved them. Both forms of slavery were brutal, unlike American slavery, notwithstanding the "Roots" propaganda.

Not desiring to accept facts does not make them any less true. Africans were much better off in America than they were in the Congo. Lifespan was greatly increased. Slaves did not have to drink cows blood or eat baboon filet any longer. They were not indiscriminately slaughtered in warfare, as they were in the Sub Sahara during regular tribal battles, and were not starved to death or killed by their slavemasters in Africa when they became unproductive, disabled or too sick to make a contribution to the tribe.

When they became sick in America, they were taken to a medical doctor or hospital, not a witch doctor. They were not worked to death, as they were in Africa, Brazil, Cuba, and other primitive societies where human life had little or no meaning.

Most slaves were taught the Christian religion and slaveowners attempted to instill into them moral virtue after they had been weaned off of their primitive superstitious beliefs. Many were taught to read and write by those "evil" slaveowners. Slavery was simply a social relationship of the inferior to the superior. Oh, yes, I can hear it now--Superior???? Yes, it was a far superior culture, civilization, and Africans as a people were far inferior in intellect, as theirs was a primitive hunting culture, whose only structure was a one-story mud hut. They were living in the Stone Age before the forceful migration to America. That may horrify your indoctrinated minds, but it is most certainly true. Europeans throughout history erected great civilizations. No, Caucasions did not "steal" away great African cultures and civilizations. These are the myths of the multi-culturalism that so-called conservatives claim to abhor. If Caucasions "stole" everything from Africans, its obvious that Africans would've reclaimed and rebuilt their "great" culture. If the reverse were true, and Africans stole away Western culture and left European peoples and decendents with nothing, the culture and civilization would have rebuilt within a short period of time.

 One thing that can't be "stolen" is intelligence, creativity, and will.

 Most slaveowners owned between 1 and 3 slaves, and worked alongside their slaves for economic reasons. Contrary to the propaganda, they were not sitting up high in the plantation mansion drinking Mint Julep.

 Working hours for slaves usually consisted of 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.

 Between 20 to 30% of the slaves were paid a "Booty,"  which they could spend on booze, or save to buy their freedom.

 So I suppose if we put shackles on you with the promise that eight generations later your descendents will be better off than they would otherwise, that's alright by you?

How could you put shackles on someone who was already free? That belies the whole argument and is illogical to the core. If you took his freedom away you could make that argument. If 'Basil Rathbone' was a slave in his own country before he became a slave in America; if he was an ignorant, primitive cannibal, your case may hold water, but it falls flat on its face because Rathbone (European) was a free man. If you put shackles on him, that would violate his rights to liberty. But in the case of African slavery, its the same as transporting a convict from one prison to another. No one put shackles on Africans that weren't already there.

  In your world, taking someone's freedom away by force, and transporting the institution of slavery from one continent to another is non-distinguishable.

 What would've happened if the Europeans would have freed the African slaves by force?

 Well, after they left, they'd be enslaved again by the next tribe with more and "advanced" spears. That was the fate of Africans, and had been since recorded history.

Until American slavery, which without question or doubt was the greatest event in the history of the Negro race.

 Regardless of the mocking, sneering replies that will inevitably follow, Negroes literally hit the lotto when Europeans changed their fate, and unfortunately the ultimate fate of Caucasions in America.

 Yes, slavery was an evil, but infinitesimally a much greater evil to Caucasions than Negroes.

 Africans have benefited from slavery, and as Basil R stated, no complaining Negro in America today would reverse the situation if he or she could go back in time with the power to eliminate the slave trade.

 For obvious reasons that we all know but are too timid to say, American Negroes today

 would be floating down the Rawanda River in 3 pieces, or chasing a Wart Hog with a spear so they could enjoy dinner, or trying to stuff a plate in their mouth to look "gorgeous," if the slave trade to America never occured.

 The true evils of slavery that exist can be seen in the effects of Negroes as citizens.

 Interracial crime is 90% black on white.The cost of taking care of blacks through the welfare state and dealing with their crime and property damage ever since statistics have been kept, has been far above what they contribute to society just in dollars and cents, and not counting emotional, spiritual, or phychological damage to America, individually or collectively.

 Of course, no so-called republican worth his salt would ever dare agree that this may be harmful to caucasions. They've shut their eyes to truth, and no matter what blacks do or don't do, we all know that they're a wonderful race, and America is so much better off with their presence in America.

 Although no republican hack would ever consider stating any truth about race, they do know the score. Thats why white-flight has been massive since intergration, and why you don't see liberal and so-called conservative whites living in black neighborhoods and sending their children to black schools. Liberals and so called conservatives are the ultimate hypocrites.

 If anyone on this blog can cite me just one city, town, village, hamlet, or neighborhood that was once predominately white, but is now predominately black, and conditions have improved (other than the basketball team being better), then you'll make your case. But that is something you cannot do. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Think about it before you reply back with how blacks have been good for America.

 Blacks are not hypocrites. They state it as they see it, skewed as their vision may be.

 Blacks have a never-ending laundry list of demands upon whites, but whites, lightweights that they are, make excuses for them.

 Blacks are very race conscious, and race supercedes everything else with most of them. If they perceive any fault in whites, they are quick and dutiful to expound on it. The same cannot be said for the weak white American.

He is too fearful to heap anything but praise on the "superior" black race. Yes, Blacks are superior in one respect. Blacks would never put up with whites behaving as blacks do if they were in the lead. Nor would blacks go to work every day to support whites who didn't work, used and sold drugs, etc.

But then again its pointless to even contemplate such a scenario, as it could not occur. Blacks cannot maintain a civilization more advanced a primitive hunting culture. History and empirical evidence bears this out, as well as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave evidence to the savagery and barbarism of blacks when left to their own devices.

 Following your logic, reparations to blacks should be in order. You might want to consider petitioning your Represenative or Senator to propose such an amendment.

  I'll conclude this, as I want to reply to the others who blindly, and with nothing but emotional rhetoric, replied to Basil Rathbone.

  One more point. This "aren't we such sweet people" hand-wringing of the "evils" of slavery is simply a put down of the great Western and American cultures. Slavery, throughout recorded history, was not a parcuilar institution. Even the Apostle Paul instructed one of his followers, a slavemaster, to tend to his slaves.

 For every tear that has been shed because of America, America has dried a thousand.

 Consider that as you come with your non-factual, fallacious replies.

I'll definitely get to the guy who back-handedly claimed that he was smarter and emotionally more well-rounded than our Founders; who he inaccurately charges with establishing slavery in America.

  More than 600,000 whites died in the War between the States, and property damage done by Sherman and Sheridan made Attila the Hun look like a piker.  

What was that you mentioned about the ends justifying the means?

Yes, its fine when whites are used as fodder to dismantle the Constitutional Federal Republic and replace it with a National state.

I understand completely.

Its was only white people.

How any one...     By: Dales    

... can view slavery as anything other than one of the biggest abominations of the human spirit (secondary only to genocide to my mind) is simply beyond my comprehension.

 Yes, thats the problem. Its beyond your comprehension. I'm puzzled as to why your lament is only directed towards American slavery, which lasted less than 80 years after the ratification of the US Constitution. I'm also puzzled as to why you've mentioned nothing about the slavery of involuntary servitude, which was a much larger institution than African slavery. But involuntary serfs were only white people, which doesn't count. Again, slavery has never been an unusual institution. The Apostle Paul directed one of his followers to tend to his slaves.He also praised the man as being in Christ's favor. How could that be? A slaveowner? Oh my God!!! I thought they were all EVIL!!

Why direct your indignation toward an institutiton that has been abolished for 150 years? What kind of mentality is it that wails and whines about an institution that has long since been abolished, and by the written law? America was the first nation to abolish slavery by the organic, fundamental law. Why not give her the credit that she deserves?

Only 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution, and more than 500,000 white lives lost!!! Answer me this: How long would it have taken for the African tribes to free their slaves? But then, we mustn't ask such questions, for that might suggest moral superiority by white people.  

Why not direct your "righteous" indignation to Kenya, where 8% of the population are still slaves. Or to Sudan? Or the other African nations who still employ slavery?

 Why toward America? I'll tell you why, and the reasons are only a few. Among them:

 1. Its a knee-jerk reaction that you've learned in school, from the media, uninformed parents, surrogates, etc. But at a deeper level, its probably a lack of self honesty, and

a desire to be in the majority. You want to believe that you're a "warm," "kind," "good," person, and thus, being against slavery allows you to feel good about yourself.

2. You may be a republican hack who has a stake in being dishonest about the history of slavery, or one who wants to enter the arena as republican columnist, talk show host, author, politician, etc. These types want to be great, but being great consists in first seeking truth. Greatness will automatically follow. But fame and fortune is more important to the oppourtunists. Truth be damned. The price of integrity is too high for them.

If thats the case, you already know that any assertion of the history of slavery in America as being anything other than an "abomination" is the death-knell for breaking into the business. You also realize that any portrayal of black heroes such as the mass murderers Nelson and Winnie Mandela or Nat Turner, who bragged about sliting the throats of white babies, children and women as anything other than saintly, means automatic and immediate termination with respect toward your goals.

Stating the truth about the radical abolitionists, such as the murderous John Brown and the Secret Six who backed him, is also automatic disqualification.

The memory of one of the most noble men in American history, Robert E. Lee, is castigated on the republican talk shows, i.e. Hannity, but one of the most despicable men in American history, Martin Luther King, cited by the Attorney Generals office and the Congressional Internal Security committees (now abolished) and a member of 62 communist front groups (more than any other man at the time of his death), and the man who did more to destroy Federalism than any man in the 20th century, receives unending accolades from all republicans. Everyone knows why. If one doesn't, its career suicide.

There was nothing redeeming about slavery. No bright side. No mitigating factors. No shades of gray. Only the abyss.

You can't be serious.  If thats the case, you should be in the forefront of a campaign to send all blacks back to Africa. If there is only the abyss, you should be clamoring, as they would, for immediate shipment back to the native land so they can reclaim their "superb" culture, civilization, and lifestyle.

It might behoove you to get over your unfounded guilt. There is no reason for it. Blacks have benefited from the slave trade more than any other people. They now are citizens in the most advanced civilization in recorded history. They have oppourtunities here that they couldn't even dream of in the Congo. Pardon me, but they are Americans now.

Blacks are the only people in history who never had to fight to win their freedom. They didn't have to shed blood, sweat and tears to enjoy the liberty. They didn't have to take up arms, as every other people had done to win their freedom. Maybe thats why they don't appreciate America, but only for the goodies they can receive.

Please don't tell me that they suffered. Every people has gone through suffering, and to a much greater degree than black slaves. Tens of Millions of people have died fighting for liberty, or to attain it. Blacks did not have to do that. And no, very, very few were in combat positions during the War between the States, and fewer even participated in the War for Independence. It was the more than 600,000 white people who died in War between the States. And for what? So that the Federal Union could be transformed into a unitary National state.

 And what about Reconstruction? I realize that it doesn't matter, as the unconstitutional military police state known as Reconstruction was directed against the white south. So why bring it up, right? Its immaterial. They were only white people who were ravaged, raped, killed by blacks.

 There is one great eternal law that never fails, and that is the cause always preceeds the effect. Even blacks, if they apply themselves and work without their constant complaining about  "white oppresion", life in America can be a paradise. If they don't, and they refuse to better themselves, they make their own bed and should lie in it, without assistance from muddle-headed whites. Life is the greatest teacher.

There are no excuses. There are no collective victims.

 What you sow, you will reap. Blacks create their own problems, regardless of the excuses made for them, which they love to hear, but does not help them.

 A case can be made that blacks don't have the ability to advance on their own.

At least a full-blooded African cannot. Thats why they've never had anything more than a primitive civilization, absent white ingenuity, technology and manpower.

 Naturally, we don't want to come to the realization that although the memory of blacks is equal to whites, they are far down the ladder in cognitive reasoning. Thirty points below on just about every Intelligence Quotient test in American history. It was well known just a few decades ago that blacks lack the ability to contribute to any useful society. And they haven't. Republican icon Teddy Roosevelt said that Negroes were "a useless and pernicious race." There you go, and that's from one of your heroes.

Our Founders and Framers, unlike modern Americans, were not afraid to state the truth either. They understood that society and America would suffer if blacks were given citizenship. That is not to say that they condoned slavery. Almost to a man, they desired the abolition of slavery, but I challenge anyone to cite one prominent American statesman  (no, not William Lloyd Garrison or the Transcendalist Ralph Waldo Emerson) from the time of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation to the time of Daniel Webster's death that wanted slaves to be freed and live among whites as equal citizens.

I suppose next that you'll claim that we are all equal. Are you going to exclaim next that if 55 African tribal leaders were hand picked, that they could have sat down for 87 days, 400 hours of discussion, and produced a document similiar to the US Constitution?

Or are you going to cite the phrase in the Declaration of Independence: "all men are created equal," that had meaning within the context of the family of nations, but has now been misread and twisted as to  give an illogical meaning, as if Jefferson was excoriating King George for what the colonists did.

Men are fallen creations. We sin individually and collectively. As such, I do not look at our country as deserving more shame than others. The founding fathers, despite this monstrousity that they bought off on (and in some cases participated in), were great men who accomplished great things, and many were much more enlightened about the liberty of all men than was the norm in the world of the day.

How nice it is of you to forgive the Founders of their "faults."

In the first place, the Founders didn't create or invent slavery, they

inherited it. And they dealt with as best they could, and far better and

fairer than if the roles were reversed and whites were enslaved by blacks.

So, in other words, your desire is that they should've demanded the abolition

of slavery at the Philadelphia Convention. Then there would've been no union,

and America as we know it would not exist. We'd have remained as 13 independent

colonies, and the invasion by foreign nations was inevitible. The trade wars among

the states would've resulted in Civil war, balkinizing the nation.

This knee-jerk, back-handed put down of the Framers is so typical of those who

play "follow the leader," or even worse, "follow the follower."

Its too bad that you cannot realize even a fraction of what they went through to

secure liberty for you, so you can now forgive them for their "wrongs"

 and "mistakes"

So perhaps I too am guilty of "indicting" the founding fathers for their complicity in the abomination of slavery. I still wouldn't trade them for any other country's founders.

You shouldn't be indicting them of anything to begin with. Take a look at yourself first,

and then wonder no more about whether to "indict" the Founders.

Get informed first before knee-jerk reactions take hold of your brain housing group.

But they screwed up with slavery. And the country has paid for the screw up deeply. Paid in the blood of slaves and of soldiers. Paid in unbelievable financial costs. Paid in the cost of turbulent racial relations. And that is beyond the betrayal of our founding principles of liberty.

Ah, no they didn't "screw up with slavery." You obviously are extremely ignorant of the workings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and also of what was known as the

"Negro Problem," not to mention the evils that existed under the Articles of Confederation.

 Its actually pointless to go into detail of the subject, as its more than apparent that your starting point lies somewhere below sea level. It wouldn't suprise me if you replied with the lie that the Constitution describes slaves "as 3/5ths of a human being."

Somebody probably will. Can't wait for that.

 A recommendation that will fall upon deaf ears, but I'll make it anyway. Spend the money, buy the "The Founders Constituiton," read all 3,000+ pages, and then re-read it.

Report back in a year or two. Then we can have a legitimate discussion about whether the Framers of the Constitution "screwed up."

Trip wire     By: casualobservervations    

Yes, indeed it is.  It seems pretty tough for a modern conservative to bring it up without verbally shooting themselves in the leg.  It is sometimes a visibly labored task.

No, no, he didn't shoot himself in the leg. You did with an unsubstantiated critique. You've said nothing. Besides, your indictment of Rathbone as a "modern conservative" is what is really insulting. Modern conservatives cannot think. They merely listen to what their elites happen to say. Rathbone doesn't sound like a modern conservative, thank God. If he did, I'm sure he'd be spouting off at the mouth, spewing politically correct rhetoric like the rest of you.

And it sure didn't seem like he was visibly labored. It was merely a case of dealing with the realities of the situation.

Slavery may have ended a long time ago, but there are still many survivors of the cross burnings, police beatings, segregation, lynchings, and church burnings.

Yes, and there are 1,700,000 white survivors of violent black crime just since 1965. Ten times the number of black survivors of white crime.

Cross burnings, yes, are a method of indimidation. State laws and local ordinances deal with those happenstances. Should the all-powerful Federal gov infringe (unconstitutionally, of course) into affairs that are the purview of the states?

In your world, yes. But that only confirms the fact that the vast majority of so-called conservative Americans are completely ignorant of what Liberty entails. They believe, as liberals do, that progress does not consist in the restraining of gov, but in government usurping and consolidating all power. They believe it is the duty of the Federal behemouth to right all perceived wrongs.

What police beatings? They are few and far between. This is an old saw of the American communist parties, whose desire was to eradicate all local authority and transfer it to the "benevelent" Federal government. Grow up. Most police beatings were justified, as those on the receiving end were violent resisters, civil insurrectionists, or were fleeing felons.

So to top it all off, we should now trash the local police? How American of you.

Should we outlaw all racist groups so you can live in your idealistic utopian world?

Its clear that you've never delved into, nor would understand Hamilton's Essay # 6, and especially Madision's Essay # 10, where he reasons that outlawing factions is equivilent to outlawing liberty itself.

Segregation and intergration were not to be the within the purview of the Federal gov. But as "modern conservatives" who merely pick and choose their Constitutionalism, I'm sure you believe differently.

What does Freedom mean to you? Should a man or woman be forced by the Federal gov to sell or rent their house to a black, homosexual, unmarried couple, etc.?

Should a business owner be forced to serve anyone and everyone?

Should a corporation be forced to hire on the basis of race quotas?

Shouldn't a man be at liberty to exlude? The free-market will be the judge, jury, and executioner of his own personal motivations. Or should he be forced to bend to Rosseau's tyrannical "General Will?" The free-market is the toughest task master anyone can ever have.

Property is not private, nor is it even property without the right to exclude.

Thats what freedom is all about. But not in the nirvana-like existence that you fantasize about. You're angry with God because he didn't place you in world filled with perfect people like yourself. What arrogance!

 Church burnings? If you'd spend the time and effort researching the issue, you'd find that a large percentage of the "church burnings" were the work of agent provocuteurs.

Yes, they were subversives who want the Federal systems of government that America was designed to operate under, destroyed. They got their wish. Federal laws pertaining to speech and hate crimes are now on the books, and many more on their way.

Its Orwell's 1984-lite at this juncture. But thats always been the goal of the anti-Constitutional Republican Party. Its been a centralizing party since its inception.

 Their direct descendants have no doubt been told the stories.  Memories don't die so quickly.  

Un huh. A question for you: Do you think the memories will ever die? Or better yet, should they ever die?

My guess is that your answer is that they should not.

I've been told stories also. My Italian ancestors were treated harshly by Irish-Americans.

Should I harbor ill-feelings toward the Irish? Grow up, pal. No living black has been enslaved. No living black has even had an immediate slave ancestor.

Slavery is the story of human history. Most people who have ever lived have been enslaved.

Some Chinese and Vietnamese who come here to America have lived under far worse conditions than any slave. In six months they own a store. I'm sure they've heard the stories of their oppressors also.

Your lament regarding all the evils that blacks suffered through slavery is like someone's great, great grandchildren complaining and making excuses for their failures because

The stories that should have been told to blacks should consist of their good fortune to have wound up in the greatest civilization in history. The stories should be told of their

oppourtunities, and the very fact that the poorest of welfare blacks now live like royalty compared to their African brethren. The stories should consist of gratitude, hope, and the blessings of liberty that they've enjoyed and can enjoy if they'd only cease making excuses.

Taking the approach that it was ancient history can be very offensive to people, and understandably so.

And worst thing you can do is try to gloss over it as your post did.  It's just plain insulting.

yes, glossing over pertinent points with unadultered rhetoric is very insulting.

But did you just give a rambling apologetic for slavery, insult a fellow commenter, and attack a straw man all at once? I think I have to warn you, though I honestly didn't get through it enough to know if it's for politeness, apologizing for an abomination, or mobying.

 You might as well say that...     By: polyphemus    

    the Holocaust was a net benefit for the Jews since rather than a continued existence as a marginalized, (probably) persecuted diaspora they are now a viable, stable, etc. state.

Its a ridiculous analogy, as Jews were not enslaved. In pre-war Germany, Jews were the leaders in every aspect of society. They were hardly marginalized or persecuted in Germany prior to the Nazi ascension to power. Bulk up on WW11 history before making unfactual statements, and ludicrious analogies designed to sure up unfounded pronouncements.

Its to be expected that some neo-con sympathizer would bring up a wholly European phenomenom to buttress his "outrage" over the American institution of slavery.

How quaint!

The proper response to slavery should have been the transportation of freed slaves and free blacks to a nation that would have them, like Liberia. Most other nations refused to have blacks settle within their borders.

This was proposed, and Lincoln pushed for the Colonization Amendment that would have secured the authority to send the newly freed blacks to somewhere where they could make their own way.

But, as we all know, Lincoln was assainated before his recommended amendment got wings.

This belief of freeing white America from blacks was almost universally accepted. Whites had no desire to live among or with blacks.

By the natural law, shipping them back was the only way to right the supposed wrong of slavery. Americans understood that blacks should have to undertake what the Pilgrims and others had to go through to get here and settle.

 As the first Republican President expressed, they will have the benefit of years of experience and observation of American civilization. The Amendment would have provided financial support and manpower for an indefinite period of time, until blacks could establish their civilization, and be rooted in their homeland.

Now what is so horrible about that? Yeah, I know, "blacks built this country," and should enjoy the fruits of what they built. Uh Huh, sure they did.

No, all they did was pick cotton, which could've been done by white workers. The slave economy was very cumbersome, never outperforming the free market of the North.

This country, as every American knows, was built by white people. If blacks built this country through slave labor (which the benefits of slave labor were destroyed by war and later Reconstruction), then its just as logical to say that the Chinese built America, as they laid much of the western section of transcontinental railroad lines.

 While there may be a debatable point for some preternaturally objective, dispassionate philosophers you'll just end up looking like a bigot regardless of anything else.  And rightly so in my opinion since this line of reasoning is the basis for some of the more noxious conspiracy theories.  

Make the connection between Rathbone's line of reasoning and conspiracy theories.

You've thrown up alot of dots, but you've failed to connect any of them.

Your lament about dispassionate philosophers seems to belie your apparent need for philosophical meanderings.

 Like I said, make your connection. I'm sure most people would enjoy seeing this.

 You sound like Kierkeggard, Jaspers, or Camus, rambling on in the dialect of elequent Existentialism.

I mean I can sit back today and say:

the world west of the Indus can thank* Athenian hegemony for the Hellenizing of their cultures since they intervened in Macedonian affairs that led to wandering sympathies and fledgling alliances with Sparta and Athens.  Less than a century later Philip was in the proverbial catbird seat looking down on the exhausted superpowers.  And his baby boy made the most of his inheritance.

Again, this sounds like perfected Existentialism, that rambles but says nothing.

You want to sound smart? Take a course in Rationalsim and study Kant's Critique of Reason.

 But as the Natural Law philosoper, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote (paraphrasing), if a man has to use goobleygoop in an attempt to make a point, he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Comparing Philip, Alexander, and the historical Grecian march to this discussion of slavery is folly, along with being nonsensical. A non sequitor if is there ever was one.

The point you're driving at and the analogy you're attempting is not even relevant. My guess is that you're a republican hack trying to make your bones, and impress everyone with your "brillance." But Macedonian history is fairly simple. Any first year world history student can

possess a firm understanding of it. But connect the dots if you want legitimacy. I see what you're trying to extoll, but sorry, its nonsense.

All of that may be true and I doubt anyone would bat an eye even if I noted the piles of corpses but (humongous but) I'm at a distance of 2500 years.

Exactly, so what was the point of expounding on Macedonian civilization?

If you desire to make a point (which you haven't so far), I'm sure you can do it

so as Joe Six Pack can come to a realization of what your propounding.

You can probably do it if you try. But then again, with your reasoning, you'd fail to make a

legitimate point, and you'd be exposed.

 If someone is going to formulate the slavery calculus it isn't going to be either you or me.

Well I realize that it wouldn't be you.

But why can't someone else do it? Who is that field of endeavor reserved for? The government? The elites? The media wonks? Conservatives dressed in Liberal clothing?

 But if you just can't resist you'd probably be better off going to Freedom House and getting the figures for the U.S., Liberia(since there is a direct line from U.S. to slavery to the founding of the nation), and some random coastal or sub-Saharan African countries.  

Got em already, thank you very much.

Again, more dots. Make the connection from slavery to the founding of the nation.

Yes, it was an issue at the Philadelphia Convention, but not the most important or pertinent issue. Union and the nature of Federalism far outweighed the importance and condition of slavery in the states.

I'm calling on you this. Where is that direct line, and what is its nature?

I think the rankings would be intuitive and generally predictable in spite of Liberia's tumultuous recent history.  Then you can knock yourself out explaining why you think that is.  I'd pass though or at the very least try it out somewhere else.  If you're going to undertake some Stoic mental exercise of "which is better" about some highly charged political topic, a political BBS would probably be the worst place to do it.

Oh, ok, thanks for the advice. I'll make a note of it.

In the meantime, make a legitimate point. The old saying comes to mind when reading your diatribe: "If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with BS."

We're still waiting for any discection or rebuttal to the remarks of Rathbone.

I will throw you a bone though.  I agree with you that it is silly(chauvinistic even) to try to ascribe modern sensibilities(sentimentalities?) to historical figures/events.  One decent paragraph out of three...good for baseball but little else.

If its silly to ascribe modern sensibilities to historical events, then whatever you've attempted to say has no validity whatsoever. Of course, thats when one employs critical thinking. He then can see right through the substance-less rhetoric.

Although I don't agree with your assessment that Rathbone wrote one "decent paragraph" out of three, thats still one more than you could accomplish.

 Not just no but heck no     By: Gengisdon    

    The value judgment is quite simple.  The human cost of bondage to the actual victims of slavery cannot be aggregated into some tidy numbers reflecting the quality of living between the ancestors of slaves and the ancestors of unenslaved West Africans.  

If its not valid to make value judgments, then your beleif that attacking Iraq so they can now enjoy "democracy" instead of Oriental despotism falls flat on its face.

Should we have declared war on Germany in 1941? By your logic, no. Germans, it is said, were in bondage to the Nazi regime. Freeing them from such, according to you, cannot be translated into a value judgment, therefore America was in violation of your situation ethics.

If Germany didn't attack us, which they didn't, why Normandy? Why the fire bombing of Dresden? By your logical thread, the fall of communism can have no relation to the enhanced freedom enjoyed by the peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia.

Nor could the signing of the Declaration of Independence be translated into a moral judgment, as that signing on July 2, 1776, meant the death of tens of thousands of people.

I'm not an adherent of the Utilaritarianism of Mill or Betham, but your logic is the logic of illogic.

Slavery is not aggregated into a tidy number. Its merely commonsense that ancestors of former slaves in America are much better off than they would have been if they stayed in Africa. Just as Hungarians would've been better off in 1956 if the government elites in America had fulfilled their promise to free her against the communists. Now mind you, tens of thousands of people would have died, but who would say that Hungary would not have been better off?

The Bay of Pigs fiasco, according to you, is just as well. 1400 Cuban freedom fighters were left to the slaughter of Castro, as Kennedy reneged on his promise. Of course, no value judgment can be made as to whether Cubans would be better off if Castro was overthrown.

When Stanley went to the Congo in search of Livingstone, he killed thousands of attacking savages, who desired to boil him and his men. He then persuaded King Leopold to develop the Congo, which became known as the Belgium Congo. During development, many savages were killed. Democratic elections were instilled, the Congoids had representative government. Is it your contention that no value judgment should be made as to whether the Congoids were better off in what was known as the Belgium Congo than they were in the primitive, savagery, and cannibalism that previously existed?

 Its more than assinine to contend that moral judgments are not legitimate and have no place in history. We make moral judgments all the time, every day, and for every reason.

 This was merely more rhetoric from those who play "follow the follower," and thats the light it should be seen in. Nothing more, nothing less.

We are not even talking some sort of "good of the many outweighing the good of the few" concept - to even use Rathbone's concept of "gift" you would have to accept the systemic and involuntary sacrifice of generations of Africans to arrive at the current "good" as the acceptable price of doing business.  That is a calculus I reject.  Playing historical "ifs" makes for fascinating parlor olympics but little else.I failed to read emotion in any of the response posts.  If I had written what I really felt, I would have probably punched my RedState card for the last time.

Parlor Olympics? Its merely common sense and simple logic. Its not even an historical "if." Its self-evident for anyone who can think. Or who wants to think.

It wasn't much of a sacrifice for Africans, as they their enslavement in their native land was much more harsh.

But I digress, as it was a horrible development and sacrifice for white America.

You have failed to read any emotion in the responses? Thats too bad, as most

whites, whether they admit it or not, know the score, and therefore, your bleeding-heart

propaganda doesn't evoke the emotional response that you'd like to see.

As you reject the current good that slavery has bestowed upon blacks, and the corresponing diaster that has accrued to whites, then why do you support Iraqi

nation building, and the change in their form of government?

Why not just bomb the hell out of them, and leave? Who's to say that they'd be

better off with "Democracy." Its not for us to judge.

Listening to the Republican party line, its a gift that America is giving to the Iraqi people.

It was also a gift to the Italians when we assisted in the ousting of Mussolini.

Wouldn't they have been better off under Fascism? We can't make that value judgment, if your correct. But no one disputes that Italians are now better off. And no one would suggest capsulizing the historical event into "tidy" numbers.

Bottom line, Africans havent' suffered very much. Most of their suffering has been brought on by themselves. Its wild-eyed utopians, such as yourself, who, if any blame can be laid, its at your feet for appeasing blacks with sympathy and making them feel that they are victims. Grow some testicles, buddy, and deal with historical reality.

BTW, you'd probably be better off leaving the Republican party. But you must take a good look at yourself first. Assimulate truth, no matter where it leads. That takes a tremendous amount of self-honesty, which very few people possess.

But then you might lose your identity, as you'd be without a political party.

Democratic party is run by socialists and subversives, as is the Green Party.

You'd be a man without a party, but at least you'd have some self-respect.

And thats all that matters.

And yes, you should've written what you really felt. You'd feel better about yourself,

besides the fact that you wouldn't have to wonder anymore if your a man or a mouse.

Here's a little something to chew on trying to your looking for answers to confirm your politically-correct trash.

Naturally, it will be horrifying. We can't say such things, of course. But truth is usually horrifying. The degree of self-honesty you possess will be reflected in your reaction to the article that follows.

Light on

the Dark Contnent

Eye-opening observations of an American who has lived in Africa for nearly 20 years.

reviewed by Samuel Taylor

Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit

Gedahlia Braun

(Self-Published), 1993, 158 single-spaced manuscript pages, $20.00 post paid

"Almost no one, black or white, left or right, ever says anything but rubbish about race." So writes Gedahlia Braun in a remarkable book that is anything but rubbish. Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit is one of those rare books so full of insight and good sense that they are a pleasure to write about. Since the subject is race, this book has not found a commercial publisher, but it can be ordered directly from the author.

Dr. Braun has lived in Africa with only brief interruptions since 1976 and in South Africa since 1988. This book, in the form of a chronological journal, describes how contact with the dark continent quickly dispelled his liberal views and led to startling but plausible conclusions that most Americans are likely to find surprising.

Two Theses

Dr. Braun draws on his years of intimacy with Africans to support two main conclusions. The first is that virtually all Africans take it for granted that whites are smarter than blacks. They haven't the slightest illusion that they could have invented computers or built airplanes, and they recognize that blacks and whites differ in moral and psychological characteristics as well. 

What is more, Africans are not the least offended by these realizations. Unlike whites, they do not see any inherent immorality in acknowledging racial differences. Some clever, westernized Africans have discovered-just as American blacks have-that whites are terrified at the thought of racial differences, and have learned to manipulate this terror to their own advantage. But they, too, Dr. Braun finds, can almost always be persuaded to acknowledge the inherent limitations of Africans.

Dr. Braun's second thesis follows from the first: The vast majority of South African blacks do not want black rule. They know from their own experiences with black policemen and black bureaucrats that when Africans are in positions of power they are corrupt, despotic, and oppressive. Many blacks mouth the slogans of "liberation" but have unrealistic, often ludicrous

Many Africans do not think the way white liberals keep telling us they do.

notions of what "liberation" is likely to mean. Some, when pressed, will even admit that although they know black rule would be a catastrophe for South Africa they pretend to support it because they know that is what whites expect them to do.

Ultimately, as Dr. Braun recognizes, his observations illuminate the terrible flaws in the white man. Without constant urging from liberal whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in the hands of a race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-minded than their own. Dr. Braun puts it this way:

"(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society; (2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not for white liberals insisting otherwise; (3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule is in no one's interest, especially not blacks; (4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black rule." 

On what does Dr. Braun base these heretical conclusions? After several years in Africa, he began to realize that many blacks do not think the way white liberals keep telling us they do. He then systematically started asking Africans-even virtual strangers-what they thought about racial differences and whether they were in favor of black rule. 

Unlike most whites, who would be ashamed to ask such questions, Dr. Braun is utterly uninhibited. He discovered that most blacks are eager to talk frankly; most have never had an honest conversation with a white about race and are charmed to find one who is not blinded by the usual cliches. Just as interestingly, he quickly learned that even whites who have lived all their lives in Africa-including journalists and other liberals who claim to speak for Africans-have never had an honest conversation with a black about race.

For the most part, blacks fear majority rule because they know they are much more likely to be cheated, robbed or brutalized by other blacks than by whites. Many Africans believe, in so many words, that "Whites respect one another but we don't." One woman put it this way: "The white man knows the difference between right and wrong and will usually do the right thing. The black man also knows the difference but will usually do the wrong thing." It is their own experiences that confirm many blacks in their preference that their country be governed by whites.

Educated, highly politicized blacks sometimes have a slightly different political view. When pressed, they agree that black rule is likely to produce the chaos and mismanagement common in the rest of Africa. They recognize that a black government would permit democratic elections only once, and then institute tyranny. Somehow, though, this disaster is worth striving for because, as Dr. Braun explains, they think "it is all right for blacks to oppress other blacks yet absolutely wrong for whites to treat them well-but without suffrage." That they should happily anticipate black rule is, in Dr. Braun's view, "a profound tribute to the capacity of human beings to deceive themselves." 

Perhaps most common, though, is a fatalistic acceptance of the inevitability of political change and ensuing chaos. As one middle-class colored [mixed-race] man said to Dr. Braun about majority rule: "When that day comes I will kill myself."

Cargo Cults

How the vast majority of uneducated South Africans view the future must be understood in light of how poorly they understand how the world works. Dr. Braun reminds us that belief in magic is deeply rooted among Africans. For example, he reports that when a European magician came to Ibadan, Nigeria and "sawed a woman in half," the audience assumed he had actually cut her in two. After all, if African witch doctors can fly through the air and turn people into alligators, the least a white man can do is cut people up and put them back together.

Likewise, when Zambia had one of its yes-no "elections" in 1988, the Secretary of State for Defense and Security warned that people had better vote "yes" because the government would find out if anyone voted "no." How would it find out? Through magic.

Dr. Braun reports that many Africans see Western technology and high standards of living as a kind of magic. Many think that a college diploma is not an indication of a certain level of knowledge but a talisman that can make a big house and a Mercedes appear. Even the blacks who run African schools have superstitious beliefs in the forms of education; if white schools have a study period at 2:00 p.m., black schools must have one at the same time even if it is inconvenient. Many blacks think that whites get their money simply by going to banks, the benefits of which they have selfishly denied to Africans.

In this context, it is no surprise that many black South Africans think that black rule will somehow divert the magic of wealth and prosperity from whites to blacks. The African National Congress encourages this view. For example, its members have told blacks who work for whites as maids and houseboys that if they contribute money to the ANC for a certain number of years the house they work in will become theirs. Many black servants have therefore astonished their employers-and been dismissed-by suddenly claiming to own the house.

Dr. Braun quotes extensively from a brilliant article that likens the African attitude towards economic development to the cargo cults of the Pacific islanders. Some of these islands had been largely ignored by the modern world until the Second World War, during which the Allies used them as staging areas. To the wonderment of the natives, the guardian spirits sent giant metal birds down from the sky, in response to various ceremonies such as the building of long flat clearings in the jungle. Out of the bellies of the giant metal birds came marvelous things like flash lights and round metal boxes full of food.

When the war was over and the Allies left, the islanders decided to cultivate the guardian spirits themselves. They built their own flat clearings in the jungle, and set upon them giant birds made of boxes and coconut trees so as to coax their great metal cousins down from the sky. They marched in formation around the flat clearings and waved strips of cloth stuck on sticks. Somehow it did not work; the giant birds never came back.

As Dr. Braun quotes from the article, in Africa the equivalent of the cargo cults "is a mysterious process called development; the industrial countries of the North are the gods and spirit agents; the magico-religious rites are those of development planning, infrastructure building and foreign investment. . . .

". . . men of business make much of company letterheads, business suits, briefcases, elaborate business cards, and of boardroom titles.

"When the first spurt of national infrastructure building failed to produce the desired cargo of development, additional rituals were invented. A ritual of North-South dialogue was started to persuade the guardian spirits of development to bring aid, to transfer technology, and to grant better terms of trade. When this ritual also failed, Third World spokesmen resorted to blaming the West for holding up Third World development."

Just as the cargo cultists believed that by manipulating some of the forms of 20th century commerce they could reap 20th century rewards, Africans believe that a paved highway here and a cement factory there will bring the magical cargo of development. It is in this fashion that many South Africans expect black rule to bring prosperity. Often, it is only when Dr. Braun explains that black rule means that hospitals, libraries, police stations, and government offices will be run by blacks-and consequently go to ruin-that some Africans first begin to understand the real implications of what they think they support.

Those who take for granted the idea that black South Africans want majority rule often point to the fact that when the ANC "comrades" call for a strike, the vast majority of blacks do as they are told. As Dr. Braun explains, this is because the "comrades" rule black townships through terror and no one dares disobey. People who go to work during a strike may be "necklaced" or have their houses burnt down. "Comrades" may cut off their ears "because you didn't listen to us." Women may be stripped naked in the streets. The Western press occasionally mentions ANC exuberance of this kind, but never recognizes that it produces an artificial appearance of unanimity.

As Dr. Braun points out, it is folly to expect democracy to develop in the townships: "The idea of free and fair elections in such a context is nonsense."

Apartheid

Racism, Guilt, and Self-Deceit is one of the few contemporary books to make a rational case for apartheid, the South African system of separateness. As Dr. Braun makes clear, the question that both the United States and South Africa must answer is how to establish a fair and workable system for populations with vastly differing abilities. 

The problem is much more urgent for South Africa than for the United States for two reasons: Whites are an 18 percent minority and will be swamped by majority rule. Also, though Dr. Braun does not mention this, because of miscegenation with whites, the average IQ of American blacks is 10 to 15 points higher than that of African blacks. Therefore, when white South Africans voted last year to hand over power to blacks, they agreed to submit to the will of a majority people with an average mental age of twelve.

Influx Control and Pass Laws, which were at the heart of apartheid, were recognition that European civilization could not survive without them. Dr. Braun argues that there is nothing surprising or immoral about white resistance to racial integration. It is true that the first blacks to move into an all-white neighborhood or to attend an all-white school are usually intelligent and well-behaved. However, as the population of a school or neighborhood becomes blacker it inevitably deteriorates and everyone-black and white-knows this.

Naturally, blacks want to go to white schools and live among whites because all people benefit from improved surroundings. However, they also know that if blacks keep pushing into what were formerly white enclaves they will cease to be either white or desirable. Ironically, it is whites who, because they are unwilling to accept racial differences, pretend that integration need not destroy whatever has been integrated.

One of the other important effects of apartheid was to keep blacks from congregating in cities. Dr. Braun speculates that the whites of previous generations understood instinctively that large numbers of detribalized, urban blacks would subside into barbaric squalor. The filth, crime and chaos in the townships-as well as in other African cities-proves how right they were.

Today's whites, on the other hand, have accepted the same preposterous racial orthodoxies that rule America. The press now gamely argues that unfortunate black behavior is a result of apartheid whereas Dr. Braun explains that the policy of separateness was necessary because of black behavior. He does not, however, have any illusions about separateness:

"There is no point in pretending that separateness will be equal. It can only be equal if the groups are equal. But if they were equal there would be much less reason for separateness in the first place."

Another consequence of the wrong-headed view that apartheid causes Africans to behave like Africans has been an astoundingly stupid wages policy:

"It was assumed, a priori and courtesy of Western Liberal Ideology, that blacks were unproductive because they were underpaid. In reality, just the opposite was true [blacks were paid low wages because they were unproductive], and rather than increasing productivity, paying them more decreased it, by showing the shrewd black man just how foolish the white man really is."

Any employer knows that nothing is more stupid than to raise a poor worker's wages in the hope that he will therefore become more productive.

"only when our behavior is ruled by pandering white guilt do we ignore such obvious truths."

Higher wages are a reward for better work, but as Dr. Braun observes, "only when our behavior is ruled by pandering white guilt do we ignore such obvious truths." 

Another idea that has been accepted among liberal whites is that South Africa's wealth was created by the hard work of blacks and that whites have profited from it illegitimately. This is similar to saying that America is rich because of black slavery, and Dr. Braun is amazed that anyone can swallow such nonsense:

"To argue that it was black labor that 'really' created this wealth is like saying that the riveters are the ones who 'really' built the space shuttle! If blacks 'really' created the wealth of South Africa, why don't they create it anywhere else? Whites can create wealth without black labor, but blacks on their own create no such wealth."

Dr. Braun has concluded that blacks and whites differ as much morally as they do mentally, and that these differences made economic development impossible. He wonders whether one of the reasons large-scale cooperative enterprise is nearly impossible throughout Africa is that blacks do not trust each other and cannot be counted on to work together for the benefit of all. He advances the provocative view that Africans may not have an internalized moral sense but depend instead on tribal authority to set rules of conduct:

"Hence, when they were detribalized (by colonialism, etc.), these external constraints disappeared; and since there never were any internal constraints, we witness rampant lack of self-control amongst detribalized blacks (crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc.). Where there has been some substitute for tribal control-as in white-dominated South Africa or the segregated American South-this behaviour was kept within tolerable limits. But when such controls vanish (as in present-day South Africa and in large U.S. cities), you get this phenomenon of widespread unrestrained violence." 

Dr. Braun has found that like American whites, most South African whites are incapable of talking sensibly about race. Like American whites, they now even take a perverse joy in applauding their own dispossession. He describes the tempestuous enthusiasm of white audiences for the anti-white South African movie "Cry Freedom," and writes, "the positive joy with which they cheer their own demise is quite amazing, isn't it?" He speculates that this joy stems from "a fatal flaw in the white race: the capacity for self-flagellating, exaggerated and unwarranted guilt and the self-hatred that seems to underlie it."

This self-hatred is at the heart of the white man's increasing insistence that he is a miserable racist who is to blame for the black man's failures:

"Once blacks learn that whites think blacks have reason to hate them, many will be happy to oblige, instinctively realizing their psychological advantage as the injured party . . . . All in all a tremendous con game, in which the white man is both instigator and willing victim."

An Affection for Africans

From this review of Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit one might conclude that its author dislikes Africans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Braun obviously likes them very much, and it is because he likes them and has spent so much time with them that he has learned what so many of them really think.

Along the way, he learned a great deal about Africa and Dr. Braun leavens his political observations with fascinating asides. For example, in Nairobi, two African friends were astonished to learn that he had a dictionary of the English language. After he got over his astonishment at their astonishment, he realized that same-language dictionaries are needed only for written languages. Kikuyu, the language his friends spoke, has no literature and therefore needs no dictionaries. It exists only in the minds of the people who speak it, and all Kikuyu speakers know all the words in the language.

An unwritten language is likely to be very limited. Dr. Braun learned from students in Nigeria that their native language cannot express degrees. It is impossible, for example, to say that the coconut is half-way up the tree or that it is near the top; it is possible only to say that it is "up."

Dr. Braun writes with particular admiration for African women, who have children, suckle them, and carry them about on their backs with a nonchalance that could not be in greater contrast to the self-absorbed fuss white women make over birth and breast feeding. He has "gone native" in a manner possible only for a bachelor, and makes a number of piquant observations from this unusual vantage point.

In short, this is a most unusual and illuminating book. It is unnecessarily repetitive in making some of its more important points, but this is a small price to pay for such a refreshingly candid and level-headed report from a continent most of us will never visit. In a better world, a book like this would be distributed by a major publishing house.

Well, this was an interesting little experiment. Following my warning, we had two pre-canned apologetics for slavery, together with God alone knows what other garbage tossed in.

I see I should have simply pulled the trigger earlier. I'm getting too soft in my old age.

Bye.

but I couldn't think of anything that encapsulates an "how dare you speak of such a thing" attitude.

Its a ridiculous analogy, as Jews were not enslaved.

You might want to bone up on your understanding of "analogy".  I think I spelled out mine quite nicely.  Just because you couldn't pick anything out of it to use in your straw man that doesn't mean you can make my sentences into whatever you want.

In pre-war Germany, Jews were the leaders in every aspect of society. They were hardly marginalized or persecuted in Germany prior to the Nazi ascension to power.

Maybe you can petition historians to change the dating of the Jewish diaspora to have ended in Weimar rather than on the founding of the state of Israel.  Good luck with the signatures.

Bulk up on WW11 history before making unfactual statements, and ludicrious analogies designed to sure up unfounded pronouncements.

If you're going to point out my "unfactual statements" please quote them then knock yourself out.  You seem to not be able to remember my words in the time it took you to hit the "reply" button.

Its to be expected that some neo-con sympathizer would bring up a wholly European phenomenom to buttress his "outrage" over the American institution of slavery.

Yes, yes, because everyone posting here is a neocon.  On second thought, save the analogy practice and focus on assumptions.

The proper response to slavery should have been the transportation of freed slaves and free blacks to a nation that would have them, like Liberia.

There was such a response.  You might want to, oh ya know, bone up on American history before commenting.  I'd start with the actual founding of Liberia and work your way through B.T. Washington and the Pan-African movement.  Unless of course you meant compulsory, forced repatriation...then, well, I'd suggest something entirely different.  But after you finish, umm, servicing yourself would you kindly post one quote of Lincoln suggesting anything like non-consentual, forced repatriation?  Thanks.

Most other nations refused to have blacks settle within their borders.

So the Evian Conference was following a tradition.  How comforting....

This was proposed, and Lincoln pushed for the Colonization Amendment that would have secured the authority to send the newly freed blacks to somewhere where they could make their own way.

But, as we all know, Lincoln was assainated before his recommended amendment got wings.

What am I to take from this?  That Lincoln was not as progressive as some would like to believe?  I'm horrified....no...no...really, I am.  Hrm, googling for "lincoln" and "repatriate blacks" turns up 100-something hits and the first one is from Stormfront.  Damn Google and their fascist propaganda!

This belief of freeing white America from blacks was almost universally accepted. Whites had no desire to live among or with blacks.

But you just said Lincoln's death was the reason the legislation was not carrier forward.  So which is it?  The crusade of a doomed president or an honest reflection of public will?  And if the latter why did it die with Lincoln?  And why did the Congress and the individual states pass then ratify those pesky amendments--XIII, XIV, and XV?  

By the natural law, shipping them back was the only way to right the supposed wrong of slavery. Americans understood that blacks should have to undertake what the Pilgrims and others had to go through to get here and settle.

You mean sail across an ocean with proper lodging, food/water supply, and hygeine precautions?  Yes, that should have been done the first time around.  I'm glad we agree on atleast one thing.

As the first Republican President expressed, they will have the benefit of years of experience and observation of American civilization. The Amendment would have provided financial support and manpower for an indefinite period of time, until blacks could establish their civilization, and be rooted in their homeland.

You're the one who said the pro-repatriation sentiment was "almost universally accepted" so maybe you should ask yourself why it was never done at the federal level.  Unless by "almost" you mean such an insignificant amount that it could never be passed.  Then I'd understand perfectly the apparent inconsistency between your version of history and, well, almost everyone else's.

Now what is so horrible about that? Yeah, I know, "blacks built this country," and should enjoy the fruits of what they built. Uh Huh, sure they did.

Are you speaking as one of the majority pro-repatriation Southern Democrats or do you own a time machine?

No, all they did was pick cotton, which could've been done by white workers. The slave economy was very cumbersome, never outperforming the free market of the North.

I've read Tocqueville, thank you.  Somehow he made his point without making me choke down my dinner.

This country, as every American knows, was built by white people.

Hrm, last I checked my birth certificate made me an American.  Whether or not I'm a real one I'll have to wait for your diagnosis.

If blacks built this country through slave labor (which the benefits of slave labor were destroyed by war and later Reconstruction), then its just as logical to say that the Chinese built America, as they laid much of the western section of transcontinental railroad lines.

Hi, straw man.  You shadow box so well, Mr. Random Formatting.

Make the connection between Rathbone's line of reasoning and conspiracy theories.

You've thrown up alot of dots, but you've failed to connect any of them.

Your lament about dispassionate philosophers seems to belie your apparent need for philosophical meanderings.

I'm sorry.  I write for people of my intellectual level.  If you misunderstood me saying my line of reasoning was Rathbone's line of reasoning then I probably wasted all this time replying to you.

Like I said, make your connection. I'm sure most people would enjoy seeing this.

 You sound like Kierkeggard, Jaspers, or Camus, rambling on in the dialect of elequent Existentialism.

I always had a partiality for Epictetus, Cicero, etc.  A little bit of a Stoic/Cynic mix though I did like Lucretius.  OH!  I'm such a heretic!.  Once I get myself straightened out on the philosophies of antiquity I'll slowly move forward in time.  I am so eager though after seeing the effect Kierkegaard and others have had on you.

Again, this sounds like perfected Existentialism, that rambles but says nothing.

It rambles a bit up until "I'm at a distance of 2500 years" then it focuses on what I was saying.

You want to sound smart?

Sound?  No, not particularly.

Take a course in Rationalsim and study Kant's Critique of Reason....[more dots, just for you]

Do you need someone to explain something to you?  If you're offering a rate let me know and I'll crunch the numbers and get back to you.  If you're advertising what got you to where you are then I think I'll pass.

My guess is that you're a republican hack trying to make your bones, and impress everyone with your "brillance."

Yes, definitely work on the assumptions.  Forget everything I said about analogies and history.

But Macedonian history is fairly simple. Any first year world history student can

possess a firm understanding of it. But connect the dots if you want legitimacy. I see what you're trying to extoll, but sorry, its nonsense.

Or anyone who's read offshoots of Thucydides but if your experience in first year world history is recent enough to serve as a guide then I'll defer to you.

Exactly, so what was the point of expounding on Macedonian civilization?

That time matters when you're discussing such momentous topics.  See?  You commented all the way through my analogy then when I spelled out my point explicitly and with tiny words you still dodge it entirely.  So let me say it again...the point was discussing slavery on a forum dedicated to politics is not a very good idea.  You get it now, Einstein?

what your propounding.

Can Joe Six Pack use pronouns properly?  Or is that just for pedantic existentialists?

You can probably do it if you try. But then again, with your reasoning, you'd fail to make a

legitimate point, and you'd be exposed.

I'm sure you're one of a very few that had trouble understanding my point.

Well I realize that it wouldn't be you.

But why can't someone else do it? Who is that field of endeavor reserved for? The government? The elites? The media wonks? Conservatives dressed in Liberal clothing?

How about people who can understand analogies who aren't posting on a political BBS?  Does that narrow the field too much?

Got em already, thank you very much.

Again, more dots. Make the connection from slavery to the founding of the nation.

Yes, it was an issue at the Philadelphia Convention, but not the most important or pertinent issue. Union and the nature of Federalism far outweighed the importance and condition of slavery in the states.

I'm calling on you this. Where is that direct line, and what is its nature?

Wow!  You are a dense one aren't you?  I suggested a pretty safe empirical analysis that anyone could do.  The only dots were in your head I fear.  The nation's founding is Liberia's...you know...the focus of the parenthetical.  If you're still confused and want to call me out you're in luck...I'm a patient man.

Oh, ok, thanks for the advice. I'll make a note of it.

In the meantime, make a legitimate point. The old saying comes to mind when reading your diatribe: "If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with BS."

We're still waiting for any discection or rebuttal to the remarks of Rathbone.

Are you and Rathbone in the same book-of-the-month club?  Who is this "we" you keep referring to?  Remedial English class?  I'm missing something here.  Maybe you could explain me why exactly you thought the person who said "discussing this on a political BBS is a bad idea" would discuss it on a political BBS.  

If its silly to ascribe modern sensibilities to historical events, then whatever you've attempted to say has no validity whatsoever.

Why is that?  Did I ascribe modern sensibilities to anything I wrote?  No, didn't think.

Of course, thats when one employs critical thinking. He then can see right through the substance-less rhetoric.

Although I don't agree with your assessment that Rathbone wrote one "decent paragraph" out of three, thats still one more than you could accomplish.

Oh no!  You wound me, Mr. Erratic Grammar.