Amos's River of Justice

Category: A Conversation About the Conversation

  • The Most Important Skill for 2025 is Ignoring Trump

    Since 2015, we’ve had good reasons for our continued participation in this one-sided conversation. I say one-sided because progressives have been the only ones actually carrying on a conversation. I believe Trump and his cronies, among others, function as a distraction and an elaborate insult to voters. Therefore, I argue that the most important skill of 2025 is ignoring Trump.

    The reason we put our hope in a conversation in the first place was the belief that America’s foreign policy had proven to be a failure and that our leaders would see the error of their ways. In addition, the climate crisis and agricultural policies were looming threats, which no one was addressing. It was obvious that we needed a course change. In other words, this was supposed to be a conversation with our leaders–at least with the leaders of the Democratic Party. But their willingness to change direction was a false hope.

    We remained in the conversation at that point because of a lasting threat from the radical right. For three election cycles, we supported the Democratic candidate for president in an effort to deny Trump the presidency. However, a funny thing happened on our way to shore up the conversation. First, Donald Trump ran for office. Then he won, twice. This made a joke of our conversation.

    Of course, it’s not only Trump and his cohorts who made a joke of the conversation. America’s determination to obliterate Gaza made a joke of it too. On October 7, 2023, a certain YouTube channel was drumming up indignation against the Palestinians. They went so far as allowing their guests to call the Palestinians sub-human animals. This was the Bulwark channel. (This is a link to the channel. The video may be hidden.) To be fair, the speakers were not the regular hosts of the channel, but in my opinion this segment left a lasting stain on the channel’s image.

    It also inspired fear, both for the Palestinians and for our progressive agenda. Pundits have drummed up indignation in the past and we know they want to lead us into another conflict. So, we continued to talk in hopes of a peaceful resolution. But that didn’t happen either. It’s almost as if American and Israeli leaders relish our dismay.

    Now, with a second Trump presidency looming, I feel I have no choice but to disconnect from American politics. Not a single thing I’ve been talking about for more than a decade remains on the table. Instead, we see an elaborate display of sheer patriarchal force. The he-men among us have drowned the conversation in testosterone. Their answer to our concerns is the caveman’s club.

    The only clue we have that they were listening at all is the realization that they have closed down everything that’s important to us. In retrospect, I have to admit that the political conversation may have been dead when we started, but Trump has finally relieved us of trying to revive it. His second presidency is the final joke. Boorishness has triumphed.

    For a more positive analysis on the political situation watch Yanis Varoufakis’s approach on DiEM25

  • Gender Rights are a Litmus Test for Left-ness

    Aside from the climate crisis there is general agreement that individuals on the left don’t have to share the same religious beliefs or ideology. However, that belief is misleading. A focus on Gender rights seems to be an ideological requirement. The issue of Gender rights has become a litmus test for left-ness. A realistic analysis of our allies and our opposition suggests this ideology acts as a handicap for political success.

    A Focus on Gender Rights Alienates Important Allies

    The climate crisis is rightly a major focus for the political left. Due to time constraints and the ongoing attacks on the democratic process, there are natural limits to additional issues that can be effectively addressed. These limits have to do with our indigenous allies in the fight against climate change and their consensus, or lack thereof, on our political patform.

    No one seems concerned that our allies among the Native Americans believe there are only two genders, male and female. This lack of concern is surprising, considering that globally, indigenous people are the foundation of our fight against climate change. We’ve asked them to teach us to care for the land and they’ve indicated that they’re willing to do so, but how teachable are we if we blithely carry the gender rights banner at the front of the parade?

    Would the Left Benefit From a Narrower Focus?

    In my opinion, individuals on the left have some important questions to answer. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to address a threat to the human race, or are we establishing leftist credentials? Do we behave as friends to our allies, or competing ideologues? Do we fit the Right’s definition of the ‘radical woke’ left, or are we clear-headed strategists? I would argue that if you don’t think these are important questions, either you are not serious, or you don’t understand our opposition.

    Gender Ideology is an Easy Target for the Right

    Ideologues on the right have made their opposition to gender ideology a major part of their platform, and they are unified against this issue. They also deny the danger of global warming. So, in the minds of undecided voters, denial of global warming has become inseparable from a conservative position on gender. In this scenario, the left’s focus on gender ideology is the opposite of strategic. It is a handicap.

  • Steve Bannon is a Pretend Traditionalist

    I recently found a key date that confirms my suspicions about Steve Bannon’s so-called Traditionalism.  I’ve long suspected that Bannon isn’t a real traditionalist. To be clear, Bannon is not a real traditionalist in the same sense that Donald Trump was never a real candidate.  Bannon piggy-backed on this conversation in the same way that Donald Trump piggy-backed on Bernie’s campaign.  We know Trump had no constituents when he started.  He had to hire actors to attend his first rallies. Steve Bannon is a pretend Traditionalist. He’s just trying to give depth and meaning to his audacious power-grab.

    Teitelbaum’s Book Probably Gives Bannon Too Much Credit

    In his book about Steve Bannon and the populist right, The Return of Traditionalism and the Rise of the Populist Right, 1 Benjamin R. Teitelbaum says he first became aware of Bannon’s Traditionalism in 2016. On the one hand, he gives Bannon too much credit as a traditionalist. But I’m comparing Bannon’s version to the Traditionalism of the early twentieth century. It’s always had authoritarian tendencies, but it used to have a coherent worldview.  He’s right as far as he goes–as an ideology it has shed its coherent worldview and lost much of its luster. All that’s left is its claim to authority.

    Amid startling political gains for nationalist, anti-immigrant forces in the twenty-first century, Traditionalists on the right appeared to be carrying on with a fantasy role-playing game-like Dungeons & Dragons for racists…It was the sort of thing that “serious,” practical-minded activists on the radical right fled from as they charged toward burgeoning political opportunities and the chance to brand themselves as viable leaders.

    Teitelbaum goes on to describe his surprise that ‘an individual with such remarkable power and influence’ (Steve Bannon) had been recorded name-dropping Traditionalism’s key figures (like Rene Guenon).  He couldn’t believe someone like Bannon would even know about Traditionalism.

    What is Bannon Really Up To?

    Teitelbaum was right the first time.  Steve Bannon fits his definition of a typical Traditionalist on the right. However, Bannon represents its modern guise. He has no ideas of his own so he uses Traditionalism as a cloak.  He’s really a hyperactive trickster whose first impulse in 2016 was to steal the show.

    At the Least, Traditionalism Deserves to Be Correctly Represented as a Historical Phenomenon

    I’ve been talking about Rene Guenon since 2015. I wrote What Does Theology Have to do with Life? in March of 2015.  I wrote Transgender Rights, Same-Sex Marriage and Women in November of 2015.  I wrote Can We Talk About Patriarchy? in May of 2016.

    We would do well to ignore the piggy-backers and freeloaders on the conversation.

  • Covington High School in an Unforgiving World

    When conservative writers defamed Nathan Phillips in order to shore up their own virtuous image I thought it best to ignore them. Never mind the fact that Nathan Phillips and his people pose no threat to them, or that they don’t have sufficient resources to retaliate. But the Covington High School saga is morphing into a tribal face-saving effort involving parents, corporate media, and lawsuits. This is Covington High School in an Unforgiving World.

    In Covington’s Defense

    At least one person tried to make peace with Phillips at the scene. I’m sure this makes the viral nature of the story all the more disheartening from a conservative point of view.

    I defended the Covington boys because they are young men just starting out in life. And they didn’t fully understand the situation.

    One would have thought the story would go away once the additional facts came out, but conservative parents and pundits won’t let it die. This behavior may be based in a reality that progressives don’t fully understand.

    An Unforgiving Business Environment

    A recent opinion in the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/most-likely-to-panic-about-old-yearbook-pics-business-leaders-11549376319 argued that a person’s youth is no excuse for bad behavior. Business leaders can’t afford to hire people with incriminating yearbook entries or other youthful indiscretions, the authors insist. Therefore background checks must include 25 years or more of an applicant’s history.

    It sounds like the creation of a new American caste system. America has a long history of similar processes affecting poor people of color, but now it appears they extend to the privileged among us. Could that be why the conservatives won’t let this story die?

    Should Yearbooks be Fair Game?

    Democrats used Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbook against him, but many of us saw it as a last line of defense. Republicans were maneuvering for control of the Supreme Court. This maneuvering began in earnest shortly after the death of Antonin Scalia and was largely responsible for the election of Donald Trump. On the other hand, you could say the use of his yearbook set a precedent.

    In other words, Kavanaugh’s past became fair game because of Republican duplicity. However, no one can say that about the young boys at Covington. What appeared to be taking place in that video was a spontaneous insult against a representative of the Indian Nation. It was a sensitive time for such a news story. Indigenous people had come to represent progressive hopes during the 2016 election. But the election of Donald Trump put these hopes on hold.

    Later we learned that the behavior of Covington students was not as bad as it looked. But all things considered, the initial outrage shouldn’t have surprised anyone.

    No One Will Like Where This is Going

    If the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is correct, this will come down to a future anonymous human resources maven pushing a few buttons and calmly eliminating job applicants with very little cause and without batting an eye. Alternatively, those involved in the dissemination of the video, and maybe those who published condemnations based on the video, will pay dearly. Everyone involved is a product of this unforgiving world. However, once this becomes the business of a corporate human resources department or a crack legal team, Jesus’s admonition will not apply.

    “…He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…” (John 8:7)

     

     

  • Expunge Plato and Aristotle from History

    I’m forcing myself to read The Republic. It’s painful. It is disturbing that apologists have been accepting Plato’s lies without hesitation for 2500 years and they would like to continue for another 2500 years.  In my opinion, we should expunge Plato and his student Aristotle from history.

    The Republic

    In this article I’ll talk about Melissa Lane’s 2007 introduction for the Penguin Classics edition. She begins with Karl Popper’s conviction that Plato is to blame for Western society’s totalitarian ideas of fascism and communism. That’s a good start to my way of thinking. But sometimes I think she gives him more of a positive spin than he deserves. As it turns out the introduction is full of ammunition for critics of Plato.

    Thirty years before Plato wrote The Republic, his city-state, Athens, had been conquered by Sparta, a militaristic oligarchy. The coup occurred in 404 BC. In 399 BC the restored democracy executed Plato’s teacher, Socrates.

    It seems to me the Athenians knew what they were doing.  However Lane states that this series of events taught Plato something else entirely. They taught him that neither democracy nor oligarchy nor any other existing order, could achieve happiness or political stability for its citizens. All of them were founded on the inherently corrupting desire for power.

    Plato the Gaslighter

    It is difficult to see how Plato arrived at this conclusion from the execution of his teacher. Socrates was executed for treason. As his student, Plato would have known that Socrates favored Sparta and that he was teaching the youth of Athens to do the same. How does Socrates’ death condemn Athenian democracy?

    After the defeat by Sparta the democracy of Athens was restored and it flourished for seventy years more. During this period, Plato wrote The Republic. Athenian democracy finally ended with the conquests of Alexander the Great. Alexander was taught by Plato’s student, Aristotle.

    It seems that from the time of Socrates this cadre of men never wavered in its enmity toward Athens.  This puts The Republic in its proper perspective.

    Plato’s Politics

    In his treatise, Plato argued that a system where every citizen had the right to speak brought tension between the few rich and the many poor. His sympathies were obviously with the rich. He was one of them. He claimed that since the common people were numerically and ideologically dominant it generated ‘tension with the elite’. And he blamed Athenian democracy for the establishment of an empire abroad.

    Plato’s uncle, Critias, and his cousin, Charmides, were would-be oligarchs who thought oligarchy was the solution. In fact, it was Critias who connived with the Spartans in 404 BC to install himself and his cronies as a junta called ‘the Thirty’. While in power they used their power to murder and expropriate, and excluded the vast majority of Athenians from citizenship.

    Plato: The Kinder, Gentler Oligarch

    Naturally, the ever philosophical Plato begged to differ with them, at least on paper. Oh, he thought Athens should be an oligarchy too, but he invented a form of it that no one had ever seen up until that time. And no one has seen it since. He invented an oligarchy governed by philosopher kings! And surprise of surprises—he pictured it very much like Sparta.

    “In Sparta, however, where oligarchical rule was longer-lasting and ingrained in the customs and way of life, Plato did find one clue to political health. This was the unity of the Spartan ruling class, maintained through strict discipline, including common meals, demanding military training and what we have come to call a ‘spartan’ (materially austere) lifestyle. But the Spartan elite used the power of their unity to oppress and terrorize the ‘helots’ – the serfs who did all their manual labour – and they were notoriously hostile to culture and philosophy. Nevertheless, the Republic adapts a version of the Spartan idea of a ruling class unified through austerity and collective living. By choosing only philosophers as rulers, it seeks to ensure that the power of the ruling elite will be used not to oppress (as in Sparta) but to benefit the common people, so establishing the regime of expertise, unity and happiness that Plato found wanting in the polities of his own day.”

    One would assume Plato didn’t advertise this plan in the market square. He would most certainly have shared the fate of Socrates.

    Plato’s Psychobabble Phase

    And now begins Plato’s foray into psychobabble—a perpetual wheedling away at the sensibilities of the common people. For example, there is his claim that only psychic justice is self-sustaining. Psychic justice is, of course, beyond the capabilities of most people because even when they perform just actions they do it for the wrong reasons. So they are not really ‘just’ at all! Wisdom is a matter of expertise.

    Restructuring Education and Culture

    Plato was directly contradicting Athenian democratic principles when he taught that people need to be ruled. Only through surrogates could the common people have access to reason. This naturally led to the necessity for a radical surgery on existing methods and content of Greek education and culture.

    Reinventing Human Psychology

    In addition he challenged existing understandings of human psychology. The Athenians exalted indignation and anger as key to the demand for legitimate equality of respect.  But the Republic is all about restraining indignation and anger.

    A New Radical Account of the Soul

    Plato was also developing a new, radical account of the soul, made possible by articulating a parallel account of the city. Among other things, this allowed him to posit that souls have parts, like cities. Or rather, like Plato’s definition of cities.

    Division of Labor

    In Plato’s time it was controversial as to which elements a city should have. There were rich and poor but the rich had financial obligations to the poor and there was no separate ruling elite or military caste. All male citizens could occupy the major positions of power, speak in Assembly, and speak and vote in the law court. And they all fought in the city’s battles. Socrates, however, proposed a division of political labor.

    At first the division depends merely on a specialization of roles. He began by saying that there should be a class of guards to protect luxury. But then he slipped in a crucial move: he subdivided the guards into two parts: the younger guards would be military supporters or auxiliaries; the older guards would be ruling ‘guardians’ who would later be Identified as philosophers. And again, he claimed this division had a parallel with the soul: The guardians represent reason; the auxiliaries represent indignation and anger; and the workers, merchants and doctors represent bodily appetites.

    What Will Deter the Abuses of the Rulers?

    You are probably wondering what there is to deter the abuses of the rulers. According to Plato, Socrates envisioned an institutional deterrent, like the one found among Sparta’s elite.  But Athens’ would have an additional deterrent. Athens’ rulers would be natural philosophers who had no material desires.  Other than that, the ideal city had all the Spartan high points: girls exercising naked with boys; qualified women as warriors and guardians; deprivation of property, for guardians that is, meaning that the common people would have to support them; families and children held in common; and selective breeding.

    No Social Mobility

    Socrates/Plato felt that education is important but it will never make a philosopher out of a common man. Philosophers are born, not made.

    Not only is this a direct contradiction of Athenian democracy, it is a direct contradiction of religion—especially the Christian religion. Strange isn’t it, how some versions of Christianity have virtually enshrined the Greek philosophers as founding fathers of the religion?

  • In Search of the Citizen

    Today the Washington Post is counseling us about how we should speak of the dead. 2 In my opinion, it’s time to think about the living. We are in search of the citizen. But apparently, columnist Steven Petrow objects to the criticism of Justice Antonin Scalia that came out so soon after his death. His reason is revealing. He ends his plea by saying,

    “Indeed, none of us are custodians of our legacies; in the end, it’s our own words and actions that will speak for us or against us. In the case of Scalia, his words and actions proved to be one and the same. History will be the judge of all that —and so will many individuals, once we’ve laid him to rest.”

    That he can chock this up to a question of Scalia’s legacy tells me everything I need to know about him. In this light, it’s not surprising that he focused on the justice’s red-flag issues like same-sex marriage, LGBT equality, affirmative action and abortion. In other words the issue is partisan politics. But he fails to mention Scalia’s biggest accomplishment—the whitewashing of corruption and the services he performed at the birth of global oligarchy. Either Petrow doesn’t know the difference between partisan politics and treason or he fancies himself one of the elite and expects to benefit accordingly.

    Citizens United

    The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was a slap in the face of every citizen of the United States.  I personally see this presidential election as very possibly our last chance to escape the fate that the Court had in mind for us. I am never free of the anxiety that the oligarchs might win this election and complete the coup that it has begun.

    Back when Citizen’s United was first decided it was an outrage. Now it’s unfortunately just one outrage of many. Month after month I get emails from people who are supposed to be rolling back this decision. They continue to ask me for more money even as I watch our leaders kowtow to the twits in robes who did this to us. Apparently no one has considered the fact that the remaining justices will remain free to work their magic. What is your solution to this problem? To puff them up by stroking their dead partner in crime?

    It’s Time to Worry About the Living

    This is not about the dead! This is about the here and now. Here and now we are patiently pursuing the only course open to us—the election of a candidate who can make a difference. If we are not allowed to identify the problem we’re trying to address, we may as well not bother. So don’t presume to counsel me about respect. The proper focus of respect in a democratic society is the citizen. That’s true even for a justice of the Supreme Court.

  • Toward Dialogue With the Church

    A recent article about the Pope’s address to the European parliament poses questions that I think many of us have been asking ourselves. For example, secularists might be asking why it is important for them to move toward dialogue with the Church.

    “The Pontiff wasn’t the most obvious person to deliver hard truths to elected politicians about the rising threats to the democracies they serve, or, as head of the Catholic Church, to convey a blast against global corporations that undermine the democratic process by co-opting institutions, as he resonantly expressed it, to ‘the service of unseen empires.’ Yet standing at the lectern at the center of the plenary chamber, peering through wire-rimmed reading glasses at his script, he did these things and more. The leader of a religion that has created its share of fractures made an eloquent plea for the European Union to rediscover its founding principles of “bridging divisions and fostering peace and fellowship.’” 3

    This attempt is important because questions can’t be answered until they are asked. Some might wonder what is required of them as a participant in this dialogue. I think I’ve answered some of these questions for myself, although there’s much I don’t know about the church, so any errors are unintentional. We each need to find an answer by paying attention to what the Pope is saying.

    Why is the Church Defending Democracy?

    First, the church’s defense of democracy is not a new innovation. The supporting theology has been developed over the last century. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church was published fairly recently but it was preceded by documents dealing with similar issues. The first was Rerum Novarum, the Papal Encyclical of Leo XIII on Capital and Labor, published in 1891.4.

    What Level of Commitment is Required From Us?

    Next you might be wondering about the level of religious commitment required for participation in this dialogue. The Evangelii Gaudium clarifies the part the church is willing to play in the conversation and it also deals with what it requires of other participants. If you are concerned about what is required of you, you would have to read it for yourself, but for what it’s worth I have a few thoughts.

    It’s possible that the requirements are different for the dominant class than for bloggers like me. With the doctrine of solidarity, the Pope addresses society’s leaders. Solidarity urges justice for the working classes in the service of social peace. It’s true that in the past it’s also been a defense against socialist solutions, but in past times of turmoil the political left, which is part of the dominant class, has participated in solidarity. So, from the Church’s point of view this is not a cynical maneuver:

    “The precepts of the sabbatical and jubilee years constitute a kind of social doctrine in miniature[28]. They show how the principles of justice and social solidarity are inspired by the gratuitousness of the salvific event wrought by God, and that they do not have a merely corrective value for practices dominated by selfish interests and objectives, but must rather become, as a prophecy of the future, the normative points of reference to which every generation in Israel must conform if it wishes to be faithful to its God.”((Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium)).

    Being Realistic About Working Class Alternatives

    There are fewer alternatives available to the working class today, and immediate dangers threaten our ability to agree on them.  So in the short-term I think it’s important to at least understand what is being offered by the other participants in the conversation. This brings me to another set of questions unique to women.

    Being Realistic About the Place of Women in Dialogue with the Church

    In view of the importance to women of the reproductive rights issue, I think it’s necessary to offer a rationale for those who are otherwise inclined to consider the church’s proposals as a way forward. (I don’t think it’s likely that the church will change its position on abortion, but more on that later.) The rationale for female participation begins with the Pope’s statement that women should have a greater voice in the church. Critics have said the place of women in the church will not change all that much, but I don’t think this opening should be taken lightly. From what I can tell, the church continues to build on the statements of previous encyclicals. According to Catholic writer and historian Hilaire Belloc, change happens slowly with actual practice following a change in attitude.

    “First comes in every great revolution of European affairs, a spiritual change; next, bred by this, a change in social philosophy and therefore in political arrangement; lastly, the economic change which political rearrangement has rendered possible.”((Belloc, Hilaire. The Crisis of Civilization. New York: Fordham University Press, 1937))

    The Church is Honoring Its Social Responsibilities

    Claims to religious and political authority are always predicated on the ability to fulfill social responsibilities. The church is honoring its responsibilities at this time, while our politicians are doing their best to prove themselves illegitimate.

    I’ve based many of my previous articles on the assumption that the system is not working. I’ve even considered the possibility that it’s unworkable. There’s one way to prove me wrong and that is to make it work. If politicians can’t immediately solve the problems, they can at least begin to move in that direction.

error: Content is protected !!