Bradley,

Respectfully:
After some thinking, I decided that I will post once more on this thread, in order clear up any remaining confusion. I was really hoping this wouldn't be necessary, but I am honestly passionate enough about this particular issue that I feel the need to make things clear. That said:

I think that labeling any concept or idea "evil" is nonsensical. The term "evil" is an abstract term that inhabits one extreme of a moral scale. The opposite of "evil" is "good," or even "god;" sometimes, people talk about "evil" existing without any opposing force. This all depends on the context. Any discussion that involves "evil" is a moral discussion, however, and it doesn't make sense to call any concept or idea "evil" or "good," because at that stage, a concept is just a concept.

Recently, the far right has been labeling lots of things "evil." In every case I can think of, this act has had the effect of inserting morality where it really isn't an issue. For example, a right-wing magazine [edit: called Human Events ... I hope I do not promote this magazine in any way by name-dropping] recently published a list of books (or theories) that they decided were "harmful." Included were books from Marx, Hitler, Alfred Kinsey, Darwin, Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Freud, and Betty Friedan. [Edit: The implication of this list seems to be] that the theories within these books were "bad." But that doesn't make sense. Theories are not bad; they lie outside the realm of morality. The APPLICATION of a theory is where people start messing up, and where you can talk about things in a moral sense.

Adam Smith's concept of laissez faire econcomics (or "free trade," as it has come to be called) cannot be "evil," by virtue of its status as a concept. As a concept/theory, it is supposed to inform our lives (particularly our economic lives) and try to make sense out of the world. It seems to me that there could be many worthwhile applications of Adam Smith's theory. Currently, however, the model -- or application -- that our leaders are calling "free trade" is not really "free trade" as Smith understood it because it involves government subsidies (usually from wealthy governments like ours to large corporations like Nike, which you sited). These subsidies (which are called "corporate welfare" by the some individuals) give an advantage to particular corporations that would otherwise lose out in competition to local businesses. Obviously, this is not free trade, because a government is ultimately controlling trade. [This is one component of neo-conservatism, which is actually fairly "liberal" in some aspects.] I think this application is wrong (but I still would not call it "evil" ... I usually try to leave that word out of things).

You asked me to defend my stance on a conceptual level, and I have tried to explain that I do not take issue with the concept of free trade. The issue is with the particular application that people are currently suffering under -- a masquerade of free trade by corporations and powerful governments, at the expense of indigenous or local businesses and individuals. At the heart of Adam Smith's theory was the idea that markets are self-correcting if left unfettered (that is, inequalities would eventually become rooted out by competition). The involvement of government subsidies, in part, prevents this from happening.

I do not think that this misappropriation of the "free trade" concept is just, or even "true" to the original concept. I can therefore encourage a "boycott" (your word, not mine) of corporations who receive these subsidies in order to show my distaste. (And just because someone boycotts something doesn't mean they think the thing is "evil," by the way.) The "boycott" can actually be a very powerful economic tool, and is completely in line with what Adam Smith was saying (that is, recognizing the true cost -- possibly social cost -- of a product and rejecting it based on that cost). This is part of competition, and it would be up to the businesses to provide their products in such a manner that consumers would want to buy them -- or else the businesses fail. My hope would be that consumers start realizing what a charade our nation's current trade policies and practices are, and then reject certain products based on that knowledge.

Nowhere am I making a blanket statement that anything is "evil."

I hope this makes things more clear.

If you cannot see the possibility that things will turn out well, there is no reason to engage in any constructive behavior.

I completely disagree. Equate our present situation with that of an AIDS sufferer, or of one struck by progressive lupus, for instance. This person knows that his time will be up in a few years. In all probability, this knowledge of impending death is exactly the impetus needed to appreciate the great things in life. Voltaire, for example, was in fear for his life everyday, being as he was by nature of a sickly and immune constitution. The great writer Flannery O'Connor was in the grips of progressive lupus, which struck her down at the unripe age of thirty-nine. Some of the most powerful stories in American literature are the result; these were hardly the results of a person refusing to engage in "constructive" behavior. Quite the contrary.

politically nihilistic thinking IS very offensive, because it undermines the efforts of those individuals who are trying to make a difference.

I certainly don't intend to belittle the results of activists, much less "undermine" them (which would be quite a hubristic goal on my part). I'm merely pointing out that a spade is a spade, a practice that has been met roundly throughout history with denunciations and autos-da-fe for precisely the reason that well-meaning bourgeois such as yourself have never liked hearing the ugly truth of the world it has peopled with so many charming illusions.

such a perspective is a luxury afforded only to the affluent, educated, and powerful.

I will certainly admit to the crime of being educated, and could be considered affluent by those standards, wholly understandable to me, which pronounce someone with a car and three round meals a day affluent, but I have never wielded "power" in any sense. I am just as disenfranchised in this awful country as you are.

This article, in the Observer today, seems to lay a certain amount of blame at the feet of liberals and democrats, who seem to be prepared to relinquish long-held historical positions and capitulate with right-wing orthodoxy in order to make their party relevant again:

Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that 'unless Roe v Wade is overturned, politics will never get better'. Liberals, he believes, have lost touch with working-class Americans because they rely on the courts to impose their views and have never had to debate 'values' with those voters.

But it is not only conservatives making this case. Cynthia Gorney, author of A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, says she has 'heard it coming from people who you certainly wouldn't have heard it from three or four years ago. It's people who are ardent Democrats, fed up with the vacillations and ineffectiveness of the party. One aspect of that was: we've hung on too long to things that are destructive to us ultimately and clinging to Roe is costing us more than it's gaining us.'

I don't know how you guys feel about that. Is this a fair analysis?

Personally, I look on in horror and fascination; particularly because there is no such thing as 'the religious right' in Europe.

Flannery O'Connor is one of my favorite writers of all time, and I find it interesting that you would mention her in this context. (As you probably know, she was intensely Catholic.) If you have not done so already, I highly recommend reading "The Habit of Being," which is a collection of her letters from before "Wiseblood" was published up until her death. In her letters, she talks about how she unquestionably accepted the principles of Christianity. I wish I could talk with her about hope ... I don't know what she would say, but I have some idea. It has been said (though I can't remember who said it) that at the heart of every satire is a desire for things to truly improve. I think that was probably true in Flannery O'Connor's case.

I find doomsday/endless-war mentalities offensive because they come from a kind of "God pose," as if a select few individuals could pass down judgment on a reality that the rest of us refuse to accept (this is why I find the Second Coming mentality of the Christian Right offensive, as well).

Barbara Kingsolver writes about "swallowing the bitter pill." What happens when we do? Do we allow ourselves to choke on it? I hope not, for all our sakes.

Cranius wrote:This article, in the Observer today, seems to lay a certain amount of blame at the feet of liberals and democrats, who seem to be prepared to relinquish long-held historical positions and capitulate with right-wing orthodoxy in order to make their party relevant again:

[excerpt]

I don't know how you guys feel about that. Is this a fair analysis?

Yeah, I'm curious about this too. I'm under the impression that Dems are far more close-lipped, reticent, and "PC" on matters of social policy, but I don't live in the States and further, reasoned persuasive discussion from the centre is far less likely to make news (or remain with me) than bigotted right-wing nuttery.

Personally, I look on in horror and fascination; particularly because there is no such thing as 'the religious right' in Europe.

But you have bonafide fascists on the right, which is almost as good as a "religious right," no?

As for religion, significant portions of the (vocal) Canadian Muslim population have aligned with the political right in Canada. Can anyone venture an opinion as to whether this is true of the US and UK, too? A convergence of conservative Muslims and Republicans in the States. . . is this happening?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

lostboy wrote:The American people [...] often vote out Presidents (and congresses) that make bad military decisions.

Please name one time when this has happened.

Please name one time when you can attribute the defeat of an incumbent American president or congressperson to his/her participation in a "bad military decision".

Sure, LBJ, didn't seek reelection because Tomkin Gulf turned out to be a lie. Technically he wasn't voted OUT, but he didn't seek to run again and Nixon was voted IN. Only after "they" killed RFK.

My 2 cents.

Love, El Protoolio

Cranius wrote:This article, in the Observer today, seems to lay a certain amount of blame at the feet of liberals and democrats, who seem to be prepared to relinquish long-held historical positions and capitulate with right-wing orthodoxy in order to make their party relevant again:

Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion

...

I don't know how you guys feel about that. Is this a fair analysis?

Personally, I look on in horror and fascination; particularly because there is no such thing as 'the religious right' in Europe.

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing the link, Cranius.

That the leadership of the Democratic Party might be ready to throw Roe vs. Wade under the bus to make the party palatable to a broader cross-section of the electorate is news to me, but I guess it's not too surprising. You have to be around some of these American ultra right-wingers to understand just how fucking zealous a good many of them are about outlawing abortion. It's like the most important thing in the entire universe. Taxes, war, education, health care - none of that stuff really matters, just fetuses. It's really creepy.

I'm embarassed to say that I never actually realized abortion was legal in several states prior to Roe vs. Wade. If an overturn of the 1973 decision didn't actually outlaw abortion on a federal level and still left matters to the states, I'd say it's probably worth looking into if it meant easing the death grip the "moral" majority has got on our country. At least women who want one will be able to get one. It will be an additional burden for those who live in states where it's been outlawed, but the option to travel to another one will still be there and it will fragment the right wing of American politics once a key rallying point has been eliminated.

One step back, two steps forward. Or so I hope anyways.

Yeah, now we're going into permanent damage mode.

steve wrote:Just read about this. With Rehnquist about to turn to dust, I fear we are in for, say, a 30-year assault.

I am terrified.

LAD wrote:But you have bonafide fascists on the right, which is almost as good as a "religious right," no?

Italy, France, Holland and Austria are good examples of where fascism (or variants thereof) have made regular excursions into mainstream politics - of which I'm sure you're aware. There seems to have been a general swing to the right across the continent. Immigration has played an enormous role in the increasing success of parties like the Front National in France and the Freedom Party in Austria. Worryingly, this trend doesn't look like it's abating.

As for religion, significant portions of the (vocal) Canadian Muslim population have aligned with the political right in Canada. Can anyone venture an opinion as to whether this is true of the US and UK, too? A convergence of conservative Muslims and Republicans in the States. . . is this happening?

Curiously not. Something equally as worrying is happening in my eyes. The Muslim community (in the UK) is finding far more acceptance and support on the left. The left is notoriously less critical of them than they should be - which I say because Muslims are by definition right-wingers. They're in favour of things like capital-punishment, totally theocratic governance and they're anti-abortion and anti-birth control (I grab at these things just as a simple example of traditional right-wing beliefs). What I think endears them to the left is their status as beleaguered underdogs - something the left has always been attracted to. Look at the ludicrous decision by London mayor Ken Livingstone's attitude to be host to cleric Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 2004.
Livingstone was affectionately referred to as 'Red Ken' during the Eighties, when he was at the helm of the Greater London Council - an organisation conservatives labelled as 'Communist'! He's done a shitload of good for the city, and he's visibly quite left wing, but to welcome in a man who - and I quote - thinks that homosexuality is a "disease" and an "abominable practice", thinks that female circumcision is "justified" and refused to condemn the beheading of Nick Berg by militants in Iraq.
Swap al-Qaradawi's name with that of confirmed racist and leader of the BNP Nick Griffin and I'd wager that the left would have been more outraged. But where's the cocking difference?
This is just one example, using one person, but I see the same thing happening right the way across the UK.
I see it more as the left aligning itself with Muslim communities and their concerns than the other way round. I suppose that in this way it's the opposite of what you're seeing in Canada.

Edward wrote:You have to be around some of these American ultra right-wingers to understand just how fucking zealous a good many of them are about outlawing abortion.

There are some conservatives who are openly campaigning against Alberto Gonzales as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Why? Because they view him as being too liberal (e.g., on the matter of parental notification). He doesn't follow the "model" of Scalia and Thomas.

Alberto Gonzales. Too liberal.

Let us find these people and fire them into the center of the sun.