The New Populism

I don't believe that the Religious Right really is all that popular. I think that whatever popularity it does have is being blown out of proportion by scare-mongers seeking to cash in on the Religious Right's attempts to grab power.

But to the extent that the Religious Right does have any popularity, what is its real source? It is human beings' need of a code of morality. The self-destruction of modern philosophy has rendered it unable and unwilling to fill this need. But if modern philosophers don't want to teach people how to find their own answers to moral questions anymore, by teaching that Reason is impotent to provide those answers - it's not, but modern philosophers are - human beings will turn to whoever offers them "answers", however illusory and inaccurate those answers may be - even if those answers include being told not to ask questions: in other words, to rely on faith.

For the power of morality in human existence is a truly awesome one: it is such that human beings would rather be good than right. The "ideal" will always trump the "practical".

If it sounds like what I'm trying to say is that it is modern philosophy that is leading people to religion, it's because that's exactly what I'm saying.

Fortunately, there is one philosophy that stands a chance of reversing this trend: by upholding Reason, identifying its true nature - including the actual nature of its relation to emotion (without Reason there would be no emotions as human beings experience them) - and its power to fill human beings' need for morality - which includes the power to integrate the ideal and the practical. That philosophy is Objectivism.

And I think the Ayn Rand Institute is doing an excellent job of "popularizing" it.

What's wrong with the world

This, to me, is what's wrong with the world today in a nutshell. It's from a description of a course being offered at this summer's Objectivist Conference, "The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount" to be taught by Robert Mayhew.

The traditional ancient Greek conception of justice is best captured by the idea of helping friends and harming enemies. This conception of justice is improved by later thinkers (like Aeschylus), reaches its climax in Aristotle's moral philosophy—and is utterly rejected by Jesus, who told the pagan world: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

The latter, of course, is the prevailing view of morality today - summed up, in both religious and secular versions, by the word "altruism".

Geldof and Live 8

Has Bob Geldof learned anything from his experiences with the Live Aid concerts in 1985?

Well, I haven't seen any pronouncements from him yet this time, but I well remember when he was promoting Band Aid and Live Aid back in the 80's. His mantra back then was "This is not about politics". "This" being poverty, of course, the implication being that anyone who dared to mention the political realities - by which I mean the actual causes - of hunger in places like sub-Saharan Africa was, by definition, an anti-humanitarian monster. Of course, it didn't help the actual starving victims of Africa's political realities that Geldof got his come-uppance when his first convoys of "humanitarian aid" to the region were seized by the dictators-of-the-moment in the region.

At least, that's the way I remember events. Didn't hear much from Geldof about that, as I recall.

So I'm rather surprised to see him trying the same trick again, twenty years later. Or should I be?

I think the next time Geldof claims that hunger and poverty don't have anything to do with politics, somebody should call him on it and remind him of what happened the last time he said that.

And tell him that there is a sure-fire cure for poverty and hunger, but it's not a rock concert: it's laissez-faire Capitalism.

In other words: FREEDOM.

The Return of Liberty

The word "Liberty" has been out of favor in the world for far too long. Thank you, Mikheil Saakashvili, for resurrecting it!

From The Intellectual Activist Daily:

Today's Wall Street Journal, at http://tinyurl.com/bd367, provides a good profile of Georgia's "Rose Revolution" and the 37-year-old, Columbia-University-educated Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. But nothing is as eloquent as Saakashvili's own op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which he calls for a new Yalta conference to promote the spread of liberty in the former Soviet republics--and beyond.

http://tinyurl.com/dq28n

"Time for a Return to Yalta," Mikheil Saakashvili, Washington Post, May 10

"For 60 years the word 'Yalta' has meant betrayal and abandonment. The diplomatic accord reached between Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States in that sleepy Black Sea resort relegated millions of people to a ruthless tyranny.... Now it is our turn to contribute to the completion of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. After recent discussions with presidents Traian Basescu of Romania and Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine, I believe that it is time for a new Yalta Conference, a voluntary association of new European democracies with three central goals. First, we must work together to support the consolidation of democracy in our own countries.... Second, we must extend the reach of liberty in the Black Sea region and throughout wider Europe.... The new Yalta Conference will press for liberty in Belarus through increased travel restrictions on government officials, expanded financial and material support to the opposition, and enhanced training for civic society in the methods of peaceful protest that helped free the people of Georgia and Ukraine. Third, we seek to expand the frontiers of freedom far beyond the Black Sea. Our message to the oppressors and their subjects is unequivocal: Free peoples cannot rest while tyranny thrives. Just as we benefit from the blessings of liberty, we have a duty to those who remain beyond its reach. In Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma and elsewhere, millions live under cruel tyrants. Too many governments and international organizations appear willing to sacrifice freedom for what they mistakenly believe will be stability. We know that only the consent of the governed brings stability. And we know that if the world's democracies make liberty the priority of their policy, the days of the dictators are numbered."

Would privatizing Social Security undermine the Religious Right?

In today's TIA Daily, Ed Thompson writes, in a letter on 'progressive indexing':

It's not that the left doesn't want Social Security cuts for the poor; it's that they want them to *be* poor.

Altruism, the idea that individuals do not have the right to live solely for their own sake, presupposes poverty--real or imagined. Without poverty, the altruists are out of business.

The relationship between altruism and the Left has been clear to me for some time. The idea of privatizing Social Security is something that is being put forward by the Right. However, if alleviating poverty would undercut the altruist justification for religious morality, then I can understand why support for privatizing Social Security has been so tepid on the Right.

Indeed, the Religious Right has been more than just tepid. It has shown a willingness to be openly antagonistic over the issue: they have already attempted to hold Social Security hostage to force the President to give more support to a constitutional ban on Gay marriage.

Perhaps they do understand that the more prosperity there is, the less attractive their morality looks.

Once again, this confirms for me the hypocrisy of the Religious Right, who pay lip service to free market economics while preaching altruism. All their talk of free markets is merely a cover for their true goal, which is religious dictatorship.